We win the debate and health care is still going through?

[Immanuel]

Almost 2/3 of people oppose health care reform proposed by yet it is going through anyways. We win the debate and it still is getting done. This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship.

Btw, did it occur to you how many of those 2/3 might be those who feel it doesn't go far enough?


Here's a partisan source that suggests another possible answer to your question.


(Note, btw, I admitted it's partisan.)

Or how many of those 2/3 might support some reform and part of what has been offered, but not the full plan as offered.

BTW... you forgot the link.

Immie

 

[ihopehefails]

Almost 2/3 of people oppose health care reform proposed by yet it is going through anyways. We win the debate and it still is getting done. This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship.

Btw, did it occur to you how many of those 2/3 might be those who feel it doesn't go far enough?


Here's a partisan source that suggests another possible answer to your question.


(Note, btw, I admitted it's partisan.)

I know that but it still should not be passed simply because most everyone hates it. That should be the end of the process.

 

[Rinata]

Almost 2/3 of people oppose health care reform proposed by yet it is going through anyways. We win the debate and it still is getting done. This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship.

The Democrats know full well that the majority of Americans do not want this Health Care Reform Bill to be passed into law yet they intend to go against the wishes of the majority of Americans and pass it anyway. I hope that this will be well-remembered during the next few election cycles and people will vote accordingly. In my life time I do believe that this is the worst thing I have ever seen Congress do. It's pretty scary.

When Obama was campaiging, he said that the healthcare problem was the first thing he was going to fix. So apparently most Americans were happy about it because he won the election handily.

This bill is not perfect, but it's a start. It's better than what the Grand Obstructionist Party wants to do about fixing the healthcare problem. Nothing.

 

[Immanuel]

But it's not just YOUR will. It's YOUR will along with everyone else in their district. Do you think that every senator should spend all of their time polling their district to find out what their district wants? Our system is based on the will of our representatives, and our individual votes should be based on which representatives will most matches my own.

And no, we are not a democratic republic because it takes too much time for everyone to vote. We are a democratic republic because the founding fathers didn't trust the average person to make a decision for themselves. See also the electoral college system.

Except that our representatives are supposed to represent OUR will and not the lobbyists will. They are doing it backwards.

They should listen to their constituents. They are supposed to represent their constituents. They are not there to represent themselves or the railroad that wants to take over that large plot of land via eminent domain. They are supposed to represent the people of their district which means they are supposed to listen to the people of their district and vote accordingly.

Immie

I agree in spirit - but they're not supposed to vote how their constituents want, the constituents are supposed to vote for someone they think fits their own ideals. You've got it flipped around. There's no way of knowing what the "will" of a huge district is. Take for example, New York State. Should Schumer poll the whole state for every roll call? There's nearly 20 million people in New York State - how could you possibly know what the "will" of everyone really is?

Poll the people? No.

But he should listen to them. We have his number... er phone number and can call him and tell his staff what we (NY'ers) want. He should then vote on what is best for the people of his state, not what is best for his re-election campaign.

Unfortunately, the re-election campaign is what most of them decide their votes on.

Besides, not everyone in NY is going to agree on what is best for NY, but he should be making the decision based upon what is best for NYer's in general.

Immie

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes because the whole invention of representative democracy was created because none of us have time to sit in vote on every single thing so we elect people to do it for us. They in turn vote the way we would vote ourselves as if we were there because its our will that they do and not there will.

But it's not just YOUR will. It's YOUR will along with everyone else in their district. Do you think that every senator should spend all of their time polling their district to find out what their district wants? Our system is based on the will of our representatives, and our individual votes should be based on which representatives will most matches my own.

And no, we are not a democratic republic because it takes too much time for everyone to vote. We are a democratic republic because the founding fathers didn't trust the average person to make a decision for themselves. See also the electoral college system.

Again YES! The founders didn't believe the people had to earn the trust of the elected but the elected had to earn the trust of the people because it is our country and it doesn't matter what our elected representatives want.

On one hand you say that our system is based on the will of the representatives which says that people should have no say and then in the next sentence you say our votes for a representative should be based on who most "matches my own".

I'll try to make it simple:

It's impossible for a rep to know exactly what his districts "will" is. The system is designed so that people will vote for the person that matches them best, and whoever seems to match the most people in the district will win. Then, that person is expected to vote their conscience (or wallet, as most seem to do now, since we don't ever vote out incumbents).
The catch in the system is the term - 2 years or 6. So, according to the design of our system, if a representative strays from the will of his or her constituents, they get voted out of office.

So if you're right, and such a huge number of people disagree with the health care plan, then they'll all get voted out next year.

But we both know that that won't happen. Incumbents win 90% of the time.

 

[The T]

Almost 2/3 of people oppose health care reform proposed by yet it is going through anyways. We win the debate and it still is getting done. This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship.

Btw, did it occur to you how many of those 2/3 might be those who feel it doesn't go far enough?


Here's a partisan source that suggests another possible answer to your question.


(Note, btw, I admitted it's partisan.)

Tose would be those LEFTIST Coporation-Haters that are Communists in desguise that think it doesn't GO FAR ENOUGH.

Those that think that they are OWED a living, and they don't have to lift a ******* FINGER...

YEP they exist.

 

[ihopehefails]

But it's not just YOUR will. It's YOUR will along with everyone else in their district. Do you think that every senator should spend all of their time polling their district to find out what their district wants? Our system is based on the will of our representatives, and our individual votes should be based on which representatives will most matches my own.

And no, we are not a democratic republic because it takes too much time for everyone to vote. We are a democratic republic because the founding fathers didn't trust the average person to make a decision for themselves. See also the electoral college system.

Except that our representatives are supposed to represent OUR will and not the lobbyists will. They are doing it backwards.

They should listen to their constituents. They are supposed to represent their constituents. They are not there to represent themselves or the railroad that wants to take over that large plot of land via eminent domain. They are supposed to represent the people of their district which means they are supposed to listen to the people of their district and vote accordingly.

Immie

I agree in spirit - but they're not supposed to vote how their constituents want, the constituents are supposed to vote for someone they think fits their own ideals. You've got it flipped around. There's no way of knowing what the "will" of a huge district is. Take for example, New York State. Should Schumer poll the whole state for every roll call? There's nearly 20 million people in New York State - how could you possibly know what the "will" of everyone really is?

That is not practical but its not hard to see where the votes are going to land when you see polls, faxes, phone calls, and etc saying you are against something. That should be the priority of any politician.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Except that our representatives are supposed to represent OUR will and not the lobbyists will. They are doing it backwards.

They should listen to their constituents. They are supposed to represent their constituents. They are not there to represent themselves or the railroad that wants to take over that large plot of land via eminent domain. They are supposed to represent the people of their district which means they are supposed to listen to the people of their district and vote accordingly.

Immie

I agree in spirit - but they're not supposed to vote how their constituents want, the constituents are supposed to vote for someone they think fits their own ideals. You've got it flipped around. There's no way of knowing what the "will" of a huge district is. Take for example, New York State. Should Schumer poll the whole state for every roll call? There's nearly 20 million people in New York State - how could you possibly know what the "will" of everyone really is?

Poll the people? No.

But he should listen to them. We have his number... er phone number and can call him and tell his staff what we (NY'ers) want. He should then vote on what is best for the people of his state, not what is best for his re-election campaign.

Unfortunately, the re-election campaign is what most of them decide their votes on.

Besides, not everyone on NY is going to agree on what is best for NY, but he should be making the decision based upon what is best for NYer's in general.

Immie

Which brings us back to the root question:

How does he know what is best for New Yorkers in general?

 

[ihopehefails]

But it's not just YOUR will. It's YOUR will along with everyone else in their district. Do you think that every senator should spend all of their time polling their district to find out what their district wants? Our system is based on the will of our representatives, and our individual votes should be based on which representatives will most matches my own.

And no, we are not a democratic republic because it takes too much time for everyone to vote. We are a democratic republic because the founding fathers didn't trust the average person to make a decision for themselves. See also the electoral college system.

Again YES! The founders didn't believe the people had to earn the trust of the elected but the elected had to earn the trust of the people because it is our country and it doesn't matter what our elected representatives want.

On one hand you say that our system is based on the will of the representatives which says that people should have no say and then in the next sentence you say our votes for a representative should be based on who most "matches my own".

I'll try to make it simple:

It's impossible for a rep to know exactly what his districts "will" is. The system is designed so that people will vote for the person that matches them best, and whoever seems to match the most people in the district will win. Then, that person is expected to vote their conscience (or wallet, as most seem to do now, since we don't ever vote out incumbents).
The catch in the system is the term - 2 years or 6. So, according to the design of our system, if a representative strays from the will of his or her constituents, they get voted out of office.

So if you're right, and such a huge number of people disagree with the health care plan, then they'll all get voted out next year.

But we both know that that won't happen. Incumbents win 90% of the time.

I actually believe they should vote my conscience and not theirs.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Except that our representatives are supposed to represent OUR will and not the lobbyists will. They are doing it backwards.

They should listen to their constituents. They are supposed to represent their constituents. They are not there to represent themselves or the railroad that wants to take over that large plot of land via eminent domain. They are supposed to represent the people of their district which means they are supposed to listen to the people of their district and vote accordingly.

Immie

I agree in spirit - but they're not supposed to vote how their constituents want, the constituents are supposed to vote for someone they think fits their own ideals. You've got it flipped around. There's no way of knowing what the "will" of a huge district is. Take for example, New York State. Should Schumer poll the whole state for every roll call? There's nearly 20 million people in New York State - how could you possibly know what the "will" of everyone really is?

That is not practical but its not hard to see where the votes are going to land when you see polls, faxes, phone calls, and etc saying you are against something. That should be the priority of any politician.

The point is, there are far too many variables in this for a rep to know what the majority of his constituents want. By all means, make phone calls, send letters, go to protests. Those are all ways of telling your representative what you want. But don't call it tyranny when they don't agree with you. It's not tyranny, its just the way our Republic works.

 

[ihopehefails]

I agree in spirit - but they're not supposed to vote how their constituents want, the constituents are supposed to vote for someone they think fits their own ideals. You've got it flipped around. There's no way of knowing what the "will" of a huge district is. Take for example, New York State. Should Schumer poll the whole state for every roll call? There's nearly 20 million people in New York State - how could you possibly know what the "will" of everyone really is?

Poll the people? No.

But he should listen to them. We have his number... er phone number and can call him and tell his staff what we (NY'ers) want. He should then vote on what is best for the people of his state, not what is best for his re-election campaign.

Unfortunately, the re-election campaign is what most of them decide their votes on.

Besides, not everyone on NY is going to agree on what is best for NY, but he should be making the decision based upon what is best for NYer's in general.

Immie

Which brings us back to the root question:

How does he know what is best for New Yorkers in general?

Why is the question never "How does he know what the people of New York want?" instead of trying to ascertain what is best for them.

 

[EriktheRed]

Almost 2/3 of people oppose health care reform proposed by yet it is going through anyways. We win the debate and it still is getting done. This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship.

Btw, did it occur to you how many of those 2/3 might be those who feel it doesn't go far enough?


Here's a partisan source that suggests another possible answer to your question.


(Note, btw, I admitted it's partisan.)

I know that but it still should not be passed simply because most everyone hates it. That should be the end of the process.

I forgot to add the link to what I was talking about:

The Morning Plum | The Plum Line

It suggests that while people seem to not be happy with the bill in general, they're less unhappy about it when the benefits contained therein are actually explained to them. Which, if true, would suggest that you haven't really "won the argument" as much as you think.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Again YES! The founders didn't believe the people had to earn the trust of the elected but the elected had to earn the trust of the people because it is our country and it doesn't matter what our elected representatives want.

On one hand you say that our system is based on the will of the representatives which says that people should have no say and then in the next sentence you say our votes for a representative should be based on who most "matches my own".

I'll try to make it simple:

It's impossible for a rep to know exactly what his districts "will" is. The system is designed so that people will vote for the person that matches them best, and whoever seems to match the most people in the district will win. Then, that person is expected to vote their conscience (or wallet, as most seem to do now, since we don't ever vote out incumbents).
The catch in the system is the term - 2 years or 6. So, according to the design of our system, if a representative strays from the will of his or her constituents, they get voted out of office.

So if you're right, and such a huge number of people disagree with the health care plan, then they'll all get voted out next year.

But we both know that that won't happen. Incumbents win 90% of the time.

I actually believe they should vote my conscience and not theirs.

But what about your neighbor? Doesn't his conscience count too? What if his conscience is exactly the opposite of yours? He's got the same rep as you - does his will not count?

 

[Immanuel]

I agree in spirit - but they're not supposed to vote how their constituents want, the constituents are supposed to vote for someone they think fits their own ideals. You've got it flipped around. There's no way of knowing what the "will" of a huge district is. Take for example, New York State. Should Schumer poll the whole state for every roll call? There's nearly 20 million people in New York State - how could you possibly know what the "will" of everyone really is?

Poll the people? No.

But he should listen to them. We have his number... er phone number and can call him and tell his staff what we (NY'ers) want. He should then vote on what is best for the people of his state, not what is best for his re-election campaign.

Unfortunately, the re-election campaign is what most of them decide their votes on.

Besides, not everyone on NY is going to agree on what is best for NY, but he should be making the decision based upon what is best for NYer's in general.

Immie

Which brings us back to the root question:

How does he know what is best for New Yorkers in general?

Easy!!! If it increases the size of his re-election funds, it is probably not best for New Yorkers in general.

Immie

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Poll the people? No.

But he should listen to them. We have his number... er phone number and can call him and tell his staff what we (NY'ers) want. He should then vote on what is best for the people of his state, not what is best for his re-election campaign.

Unfortunately, the re-election campaign is what most of them decide their votes on.

Besides, not everyone on NY is going to agree on what is best for NY, but he should be making the decision based upon what is best for NYer's in general.

Immie

Which brings us back to the root question:

How does he know what is best for New Yorkers in general?

Why is the question never "How does he know what the people of New York want?" instead of trying to ascertain what is best for them.

So, there you go. A very good question.

How would he know what the people of New York want?

 

[EriktheRed]

Almost 2/3 of people oppose health care reform proposed by yet it is going through anyways. We win the debate and it still is getting done. This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship.

Btw, did it occur to you how many of those 2/3 might be those who feel it doesn't go far enough?


Here's a partisan source that suggests another possible answer to your question.


(Note, btw, I admitted it's partisan.)

Tose would be those LEFTIST Coporation-Haters that are Communists in desguise that think it doesn't GO FAR ENOUGH.

Those that think that they are OWED a living, and they don't have to lift a ******* FINGER...

YEP they exist.

Yup, that's the kind of argument that's worked so well for you guys so far.

 

[ihopehefails]

I agree in spirit - but they're not supposed to vote how their constituents want, the constituents are supposed to vote for someone they think fits their own ideals. You've got it flipped around. There's no way of knowing what the "will" of a huge district is. Take for example, New York State. Should Schumer poll the whole state for every roll call? There's nearly 20 million people in New York State - how could you possibly know what the "will" of everyone really is?

That is not practical but its not hard to see where the votes are going to land when you see polls, faxes, phone calls, and etc saying you are against something. That should be the priority of any politician.

The point is, there are far too many variables in this for a rep to know what the majority of his constituents want. By all means, make phone calls, send letters, go to protests. Those are all ways of telling your representative what you want. But don't call it tyranny when they don't agree with you. It's not tyranny, its just the way our Republic works.

I don't call it tyranny when you happen to lose in a popular vote such as W's social security reform. I thought it was a good idea but our side lost and it was dropped. I was OK with that because our side was in the minority but I do get upset when people in power can just veto what the majority of people want.

 

[obama2ndterm]

I'm on Medicare, will there be cuts to my benefits?

No - your benefits will not be cut. In fact, the bill would improve your prescription drug coverage.
After being explained the bill, it is a majority that greatly approves the bill.Will pass despite Republicans in the morning.

 

[ihopehefails]

Which brings us back to the root question:

How does he know what is best for New Yorkers in general?

Why is the question never "How does he know what the people of New York want?" instead of trying to ascertain what is best for them.

So, there you go. A very good question.

How would he know what the people of New York want?

There is a list of tools available such as phones, polls, protest letters, and just plain gut instinct telling you the people don't want this when they burn your image in effagy on the streets.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That is not practical but its not hard to see where the votes are going to land when you see polls, faxes, phone calls, and etc saying you are against something. That should be the priority of any politician.

The point is, there are far too many variables in this for a rep to know what the majority of his constituents want. By all means, make phone calls, send letters, go to protests. Those are all ways of telling your representative what you want. But don't call it tyranny when they don't agree with you. It's not tyranny, its just the way our Republic works.

I don't call it tyranny when you happen to lose in a popular vote such as W's social security reform. I thought it was a good idea but our side lost and it was dropped. I was OK with that because our side was in the minority but I do get upset when people in power can just veto what the majority of people want.

The point is, there is no accurate way to know what the majority of people want. And don't say polling - can you imagine a world where decisions are made via a Zogby poll?