Are there [some] issues that we should not leave to politicians alone to vote upon?

[shropshire 0]

Well... I for one am fed up to the back teeth of politicians making all of decisions for us and us not having a vote (we have a say but they tend to ignore us anyone)...

For those that say vote them out - Well, we can't do so quickly and even if we could the other side may vote the same way on any particular topic.

We do not live in a true democracy but vote our politicians in, on a the balance of a basket of issues and to me that's primitive and wrong.

This subject has arisen today because our politicos are voting on an embryology Bill that we have NO real input into - is this the right way to make decisions? I'd say NO - but what are the options? How do we claw power back from these people?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,151]

I don't think they should be able to vote on their own salaries.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NWFlyer 2]

I used to think that pure democracy was a good thing ... then I moved to the west coast of the U.S. where the initiative system was alive and well and I saw how megalomaniacs with a nifty-sounding message can get stuff onto the ballot that the masses think is a great idea, but in reality has far-ranging consequences that end up making their lives miserable in the long run.

In Washington state, that megalomaniac's name is Tim Eyman, and a few years ago, his pet project was reducing the cost of registering your car. Now, that sounds wonderful - who wouldn't want it to cost less?

Problem is, in a state with no personal income tax, the state has to be fairly creative in coming up with ways to get its citizens to help pay for things that they use every day (like, say, ROADS!), and the registration fees were a big source of that income. So, when this initiative passed, the transportation budget was gutted.

Hmm... power to the people? Maybe not such a great idea at times.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[shropshire 0]

Great example .. so then the politicians /lobbyists job would be to present case for and against...

Of course, you'd still be reliant upon the inteligence of the masses (not always a good thing, granted).

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Hmm... power to the people? Maybe not such a great idea at times.

Clearly I need my gov't to investigate drug use in baseball, football, etc. Just leave that to the courtrooms. I've never understood how they can fast track a congressional hearing on roid use but not on war crimes that came from the White House, or on election fraud, or campaign funds, or whether foie gras should be banned or.....etc

Also, there is no need for the gov't to be a parent from their pulpit. Putting in legislation on how to raise your kids is overstepping their bounds.

edit to add: Or just take a look at the Mayor of Chicago and most of the Illinois Govenor's to get plenty examples of how corruption leads to terrible choices for the public.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[downwardspiral 0]

I'm not so sure I trust the public anymore than the politicians when it comes to making decisions. Its a matter of ignorance versus corruption. Which will do more harm?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[shropshire 0]

Good point. But on balance, I'd rather rely on my fellow denizens than the bunch of ne'er-do-well in the Palace of Westiminster.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Clearly I need my gov't to investigate drug use in baseball, football, etc. Just leave that to the courtrooms. I've never understood how they can fast track a congressional hearing on roid use but not on war crimes that came from the White House, or on election fraud, or campaign funds, or whether foie gras should be banned or.....etc

foie gras has been banned - though usually in wishy washy moves that say "in 5 years."

Steroids is a non partisan concern, one without meaningful people that would be offended. The other matters you list do not make that qualification. What Republican would rather investigate the White House rather than Major League Baseball?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm not so sure I trust the public anymore than the politicians when it comes to making decisions. Its a matter of ignorance versus corruption. Which will do more harm?

people can become less ignorant, but politicians can't become less corrupt.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Good point. But on balance, I'd rather rely on my fellow denizens than the bunch of ne'er-do-well in the Palace of Westiminster.

Taking your point strictly as said, I'd agree - the problem is that people don't vote for what's best for EVERYONE, but what is best for THEM... so it still comes down to whichever idea gets "sold" to the electorate the best.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Taking your point strictly as said, I'd agree - the problem is that people don't vote for what's best for EVERYONE, but what is best for THEM... so it still comes down to whichever idea gets "sold" to the electorate the best.

I am glad that you are only speaking for yourself

I have voted for MANY things that were not the best for me personally.. but were good for the quality of life and safety in my community

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Taking your point strictly as said, I'd agree - the problem is that people don't vote for what's best for EVERYONE, but what is best for THEM... so it still comes down to whichever idea gets "sold" to the electorate the best.

I am glad that you are only speaking for yourself

I have voted for MANY things that were not the best for me personally.. but were good for the quality of life and safety in my community

Please show where the word "I" is used in regards to voting, kthxbye.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Good point. But on balance, I'd rather rely on my fellow denizens than the bunch of ne'er-do-well in the Palace of Westiminster.

Taking your point strictly as said, I'd agree - the problem is that people don't vote for what's best for EVERYONE, but what is best for THEM... so it still comes down to whichever idea gets "sold" to the electorate the best.

Generally that would be true Mike, but it's also a numbers game... On the one hand you'd have A Low number of politicaicians that currently vote [in the main] in a self interest way .vs. large number of people voting in a self interest way, so maybe more chance that the public get the outcomes that they want (? maybe overal yes, but the minorities will suffer more than they do now - sure).

All in all, I'm not sure that there is a fairer system but I'd prefer one where I get more of a say - which is not the case now.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

I wasn't speaking of the Congresscritters, although I'm sure there's more votes due to self interest in that regard, as well.

Blind mob rule isn't the answer, due to the whole 'bread and circuses' thing. WHEN the Congresscritter actually listens to his/her constituency and the special interests (bread and circuses of another kind) don't drown them out, what we currently have works pretty well.

I'm all in favor of re-vamping the current system but not in the sense you describe.

1. Get rid of the lobbyists and special interest groups and PACS - all of them, across the board.

2. No more 'earmarks' (the Dems had a chance to really make a difference in this regard and dropped it) - if you 'need' money for that pet project in your district, you submit a bill for it. No more hiding pork in the middle of other bills and forcing passage of bad bills due to critical funding that can't wait.

2a: If not (2.), then a Presidential line item veto.

3. Strict term limits - you get 2 trips around the merry-go-round, folks...then you go back home and you don't come back.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Well... I for one am fed up to the back teeth of politicians making all of decisions for us and us not having a vote (we have a say but they tend to ignore us anyone)...

For those that say vote them out - Well, we can't do so quickly and even if we could the other side may vote the same way on any particular topic.

We do not live in a true democracy but vote our politicians in, on a the balance of a basket of issues and to me that's primitive and wrong.

This subject has arisen today because our politicos are voting on an embryology Bill that we have NO real input into - is this the right way to make decisions? I'd say NO - but what are the options? How do we claw power back from these people?

Well, given the current Labour trainwreck of a government, with each bullet in the foot following another, I'm not sure I'd trust them to run a piss up in a brewery. On this question though, while I agree about the great importance of the issue, I'm a bit stuck to think of some better method for settling them.