Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Don't get me started on Orrin Hatch. Seriously. Just don't.

Anyway, I was thinking about representative government (I know I'm not helping the off-topicness, here) in the car the other day (before this topic started, actually). It's a nice system on paper, right? But it doesn't actually work.

Here's the thing: An elected representative is supposed to act on behalf of his (or her) constituency. When an issue comes to vote, his vote is supposed to be representative of the majority opinion of his constituents. Right? But when does that happen? Well, I don't know, because I don't watch every single bill. But everybody knows that there are lots and lots and lots of cases where representatives (and I'm talking about the whole of representative government, here, not just the Reps in the House) don't vote with their constituency, they vote according to their beliefs, and/or in the interest of powerful/vocal minorities (e.g. rich white folks).

A representative not supposed to vote according to his own beliefs, he's supposed to vote according to his contitents' beliefs, but it works backwards. Instead, people vote along party lines in the hopes that their beliefs will line up with the beliefs of the elected representative.

What's up with that?

Ooh! TOTPD!

_________________

Same here.... grrrr. Bonehead is the polite term.

To your other comments. Theoretically, anyone could be put in place as a representative (my cat for example) as long as they made sure that when an issue was voted on, they accurately represented their people's vote.

Since, it usually takes a bit of work to figure out what people want, it seems that it has kinda turned into a government where we elect people who we think will represent us most accurately. (Instead of the other way around). The only way around that (that I can realistically see) is to do what I had stated in my earlier post, and have everybody vote on every issue.

While that would be most accurate, it would also be the most inconvinient.

_________________

I thought of that also, and of course you're right, it's not viable. At least not until everybody citizen has access to the Internet in their homes (and they will) and safe electronic voting is perfected (which is a very, very long way off).

But I should have mentioned in my previous post that I don't think that the current state of representative government is entirely the fault of politicians. The people are also to blame, because people no longer talk to their representatives. Representatives often don't know how their constituency stands on particular issues (especially minor ones), because they never hear from most of their constituency.

Aside: This is a lot different in local government, for example -- in local government people frequently write letters to the editor, attend city council meetings, walk their neighborhoods with petitions, etc. My mom, a career math teacher, even ran for city council once, and lost by only 11 votes (I had to remind her that Florida was even closer, proportionally speaking). To the public, local government is a lot more accessible -- they feel that they have a chance to directly influence the wellbeing of their community far more than their nation.

Anyway, our representative system would work a lot better if everybody talked to their representatives. I write about 5 letters a year to my representatives about hot subjects (e.g. INDUCE and the assault weapons ban). I can't tell you how gratifying it is when you get a letter from your representative in reply to something you wrote to them. Sometimes they're mostly fluff and usually you wonder if their secretary actually wrote it, but it's very impowering nonetheless.

So, to smoothly segue back into the topic: when you write to your legislators, you're helping to put the representation back in representative government. So if you feel strongly about stem cell research, you should write them a letter.

_________________

I'm usually in pretty close contact with our congressional representative, and try to get in touch with my senator. Had I done things differently, I would probably be working for representative Rogers (R-KY), but I decided I wanted to work for NOAA and, thus, went into Atmospheric Science.

Anyway, we talked about the stem cell thing the last time I went into his local office. He sort of saw it my way (the whole not waste life idea), but, at the same time, he kinda had to go with the people of this area (people who, for whatever reason, link any and all stem cell research with abortion). The people here, while they always vote democrat (with exception of Rogers) are VERY anti-abortion. Like, I'm against it, most of the time, and I'm actually more in support of it.

Anyway, I like the idea of letting the people, whose job it is, and are who are paid, to represent us what we think.

IJ, your mom's a math teacher? She deserves all praises! God Bless her!

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I'm gonna knock this one back all the way to stem-cells.

I was reading this article the other day regarding Kerry's stance on stem cells, and it brought up an interesting point.



Personally, I think it is just fine for people to use stem cells from embryos that were to be thrown away anyways. As an interesting side point, here is an article that claims that Alzheimer's is the disease least likely to benefit from stem-cell research. Key quote:

Whoo Hoo!!! back on topic, but for how long?...

I was not aware of the fact that no ban existed. I thought the federal funding freeze was a ban.. I kinda like the fact that the gov't wants to stay out of this. I don't have a problem with that. Why should the gov't pay for all the research if the phamacorps are gonna be the ones making money on the results of said research. I am really for this research.. Thank you for clearing up the misconception I had that the federal funding ban was a research ban, and not just something preventing fed money from funding stem cell research.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I belive I'll try to bring this thread back to life.

I am extrmely for Stem Cell research. It's a big issue for me.

My grandfather has severe alzheimers, though he is my step-grandfather, so I have a very small chance of having it. He's the sweetest old guy, and was recently moved to an assisted living building in my grandparents retirement home. It's a very sad thing to see, and I have trouble understanding why people would be against stemp cell research.

Women have many thousands of embryo's in their body. Someone could be preagnant all of the time, basically as much as is physically possible, and still would have leftover embryo's that haven't turned into chilren. Theoretically, is you believe that an embryo is a life, then if someone killed an unpreagnant woman, that would be thousands of murders instead of just one.

Stem cell research shows real promise in the meducal field. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16417002%5E30417,00.html read it.

I understand the point of pro-choicers. I don't agree with them, but I understand. They belive that life starts at fertilization, I belive that life starts when the baby is developed enough to move and such. However, the idea that any random unfertilized cell is a life, and therefore should not be used to help save the lifes of millions of people who are already living irks me a little.

One of my good friends, one of the nicest people I have ever met, is against stem cell research. One argument she gave me was that science hasn't yet gives any ways to heal people, only the possibility that that is possible. The only problem is, they haven't yet because they don't have enough materials to work with.

My friend was for capitol punishment, but changed her mind after we whatched a movie on the gillotine in history. It just goes to show what kind of things can change our minds.

_________________

Umm, were you thinking of eggs when you kept saying embryos? And being pregnant as much as humanly possible would actually make it so a woman would have more left over, because they wouldn't keep losing unfertalized eggs during menstruation. Basic sex-ed, really.

And this is a REALLY old thread. Like, 1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days and 2 hours and 35 minutes ago. That's freakin' old.

P.S. All those links are from the Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia knows, so don't be dissin' and don't be dismissin'.

_________________