Town Hall Meetings

[Cecilie1200]

there should be an option for all citizens.

That would be redundant.

All citizens are free to disagree or agree.

No, it's not redundant. If you're going to ask "who's more important", then "both are equally important" needs to be an option.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That would be redundant.

All citizens are free to disagree or agree.

That's the point. No group is 'more important', all should have their say. Then the rep votes and pays the price for good or ill.

Re-Read the OP.

Particularly the part in red.

It goes without saying that every voice should be heard. But the purpose of Town Halls are not to stroke the egos of our elected representatives but to highlight the problems with pending legislation or policy. After all, why would you wish to attend a meeting on legislation you agree with? A town hall meeting IS NOT A PLACE TO DEBATE LEGISLATION.

Debate takes place in newspapers, coffee shops or anywhere people gather, even internet forums. Debate happens between citizens.

A Town Hall meeting is a place where the elected representatives give information and receives feedback from his constituents.

I thought the purpose of townhall meetings was for legislators to get in direct contact with their constituents and find out what they think. In that case, it's just as important for them to find out that people agree with what they're doing and WHY they agree as it is to find out that people disagree and why. They need a good cross-section of ALL the positions of their constituents.

 

[Darkwind]

That's the point. No group is 'more important', all should have their say. Then the rep votes and pays the price for good or ill.

Re-Read the OP.

Particularly the part in red.

It goes without saying that every voice should be heard. But the purpose of Town Halls are not to stroke the egos of our elected representatives but to highlight the problems with pending legislation or policy. After all, why would you wish to attend a meeting on legislation you agree with? A town hall meeting IS NOT A PLACE TO DEBATE LEGISLATION.

Debate takes place in newspapers, coffee shops or anywhere people gather, even internet forums. Debate happens between citizens.

A Town Hall meeting is a place where the elected representatives give information and receives feedback from his constituents.

I thought the purpose of townhall meetings was for legislators to get in direct contact with their constituents and find out what they think. In that case, it's just as important for them to find out that people agree with what they're doing and WHY they agree as it is to find out that people disagree and why. They need a good cross-section of ALL the positions of their constituents.

Begin with the notion that a Town Hall Meeting is not a debate forum but one in which the elected representative receives feedback from his/her constituents.

And as I said, those who agree with the legislation simply cannot have their voices silenced. An elected representative nedes to talk to those who disagree with the legislation. Not those who stroke their egos.

We do not need 'yes men' in politics.

 

[Darkwind]

there should be an option for all citizens.

That would be redundant.

All citizens are free to disagree or agree.

No, it's not redundant. If you're going to ask "who's more important", then "both are equally important" needs to be an option.

In the terms of feedback, those who disagree are the more important.

This does not apply to the GOP or the Democrats or any party. This is a generic distinction.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Re-Read the OP.

Particularly the part in red.

It goes without saying that every voice should be heard. But the purpose of Town Halls are not to stroke the egos of our elected representatives but to highlight the problems with pending legislation or policy. After all, why would you wish to attend a meeting on legislation you agree with? A town hall meeting IS NOT A PLACE TO DEBATE LEGISLATION.

Debate takes place in newspapers, coffee shops or anywhere people gather, even internet forums. Debate happens between citizens.

A Town Hall meeting is a place where the elected representatives give information and receives feedback from his constituents.

I thought the purpose of townhall meetings was for legislators to get in direct contact with their constituents and find out what they think. In that case, it's just as important for them to find out that people agree with what they're doing and WHY they agree as it is to find out that people disagree and why. They need a good cross-section of ALL the positions of their constituents.

Begin with the notion that a Town Hall Meeting is not a debate forum but one in which the elected representative receives feedback from his/her constituents.

And as I said, those who agree with the legislation simply cannot have their voices silenced. An elected representative nedes to talk to those who disagree with the legislation. Not those who stroke their egos.

We do not need 'yes men' in politics.

I disagree. If those who agree - and that does NOT make them "yes men", or stroking anyone's ego - don't bother to TELL anyone that they do, how are their representatives supposed to know? Elected representatives need to hear representatives of ALL the viewpoints among their constituents: for, against, and everything in between.

By the way, if someone is so incredibly off-base that the only way anyone could possibly agree with them is because he or she is a "yes man" or stroking egos, would you mind telling me how a moron so completely out-of-touch with the people ever managed to get elected in the first place?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That would be redundant.

All citizens are free to disagree or agree.

No, it's not redundant. If you're going to ask "who's more important", then "both are equally important" needs to be an option.

In the terms of feedback, those who disagree are the more important.

This does not apply to the GOP or the Democrats or any party. This is a generic distinction.

No, they are not more important. It might be more urgent for them to go talk to their representative, since he likely doesn't have anyone on his immediate staff who's presenting that viewpoint, so it's the only way he's likely to be exposed to their reasoning and mindset. But it's every bit as important for him to have a sense of how many of his constituents agree with what he's doing, and WHY. If all he sees and hears at townhall meetings back home are the dissenters, might he not get the idea that ALL of his constituents disagree? If he doesn't speak in-depth with those who agree, might he not mistakenly assume they're doing so for motivations different from their real concerns, and extrapolate that out to something completely wrong on another issue?

 

[Darkwind]

I thought the purpose of townhall meetings was for legislators to get in direct contact with their constituents and find out what they think. In that case, it's just as important for them to find out that people agree with what they're doing and WHY they agree as it is to find out that people disagree and why. They need a good cross-section of ALL the positions of their constituents.

Begin with the notion that a Town Hall Meeting is not a debate forum but one in which the elected representative receives feedback from his/her constituents.

And as I said, those who agree with the legislation simply cannot have their voices silenced. An elected representative nedes to talk to those who disagree with the legislation. Not those who stroke their egos.

We do not need 'yes men' in politics.

I disagree. If those who agree - and that does NOT make them "yes men", or stroking anyone's ego - don't bother to TELL anyone that they do, how are their representatives supposed to know? Elected representatives need to hear representatives of ALL the viewpoints among their constituents: for, against, and everything in between.

By the way, if someone is so incredibly off-base that the only way anyone could possibly agree with them is because he or she is a "yes man" or stroking egos, would you mind telling me how a moron so completely out-of-touch with the people ever managed to get elected in the first place?

Money.

Need I say more?

But you miss the point. Those who agree, have little need to have their voices heard in a Town Hal format because they can simply phone in or email in their acquiescence. After all, there is little need for politicans to meet with those who agree with them.

Those who disagree with them however, are a different animal and those people cannot adequately express their displeasure via an email. They can through a phone call, but if there are thousands of people who disagree with a particular piece of legislation, an elected representative cannot possibly answer all their questions. The only recourse and what I would say is a mandatory requirement, it to have these meetings with the people. You can call them whatever you like.

But the reality remains. Our elected representatives have no need to meet with people who agree with them. They should have an absolute and legally binding requirement to meet with those who disagree with them.

It comes down to equality of representation. You MUST be required to meet with those whom disagree with you. Or you should resign your position.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Begin with the notion that a Town Hall Meeting is not a debate forum but one in which the elected representative receives feedback from his/her constituents.

And as I said, those who agree with the legislation simply cannot have their voices silenced. An elected representative nedes to talk to those who disagree with the legislation. Not those who stroke their egos.

We do not need 'yes men' in politics.

I disagree. If those who agree - and that does NOT make them "yes men", or stroking anyone's ego - don't bother to TELL anyone that they do, how are their representatives supposed to know? Elected representatives need to hear representatives of ALL the viewpoints among their constituents: for, against, and everything in between.

By the way, if someone is so incredibly off-base that the only way anyone could possibly agree with them is because he or she is a "yes man" or stroking egos, would you mind telling me how a moron so completely out-of-touch with the people ever managed to get elected in the first place?

Money.

Need I say more?

Yeah, you need to say a lot more. Exactly what is that supposed to mean? That one can be an absolute flatliner, with no idea whatsoever where the people of his district stand or what appeals to them, supporting ideas that no one at all agrees with, and still get elected by . . . what, going out and just bribing enough people to vote for him?

But you miss the point. Those who agree, have little need to have their voices heard in a Town Hal format because they can simply phone in or email in their acquiescence. After all, there is little need for politicans to meet with those who agree with them.

Really? How come telephones and e-mails aren't good enough for dissenters, then? How is standing up in a townhall and asking a two-sentence question to a guy on a podium supposed to be more effective communication?

And I already pointed out why there's quite a bit of need for politicians to meet with ALL segments of their constituency.

Those who disagree with them however, are a different animal and those people cannot adequately express their displeasure via an email.

Why not? I can fit a lot more information into an e-mail than I can a public meeting.

They can through a phone call, but if there are thousands of people who disagree with a particular piece of legislation, an elected representative cannot possibly answer all their questions. The only recourse and what I would say is a mandatory requirement, it to have these meetings with the people. You can call them whatever you like.

Do you really think politicians go to townhall meetings and individually answer questions for every person there?

But the reality remains. Our elected representatives have no need to meet with people who agree with them. They should have an absolute and legally binding requirement to meet with those who disagree with them.

It comes down to equality of representation. You MUST be required to meet with those whom disagree with you. Or you should resign your position.

I agree that an elected official should not be allowed to duck those constituents who disagree with them. I don't agree that those who don't disagree should just stay home, out of the way, and have no reason to meet with their representatives - and fellow members of the community - in person.

And I think the REAL point, the one I started out making, is that your poll should have an option for my answer, rather than you just telling me it's wrong and I'm not allowed to have it.

 

[Montrovant]

I am very much in agreement with Cecilie here. If the purpose of the meetings is to get feedback on what the elected official's constituents think, then it is just as important to have people who agree and disagree attend. The idea that you cannot adequately express anger, disagreement, etc. in formats that you CAN adequately express happiness, agreement, etc. is a false one IMO. And, as Cecilie pointed out, you can say much more in an email than you will be able to in a town hall.