in these days of instant communications & mass communications - are "elected representatives" actually needed anymore?
they were created to represent population groups, which now have the ability to actually speak for themselves. and, seemingly quicker than thru "proxy"/representative.

yes, I can see that there is still need for people who actually propose & draft laws. but, that too can bee as simple as a Facebook post with likes & dislikes. obviously being simplistic, just trying to show a working model.

The whole idea behind representatives is to have a buffer zone between the public and the workings of the government. Because public opinion is as fickle as the wind. And the general public is generally uninformed and uneducated. And in these days of instant worldwide media, the public is also easy to manipulate.

Unfortunately, our representatives have gotten in the habit of representing themselves and/or their golfing/drinking buddies. And whose fault is that? Before you answer that question, remember that they were voted into office. And some of them have been re-elected.

I've talked with one of mine on a few occasions. It's nice because we see eye to eye on many things. I'm pretty sure I couldn't call the Governor at his house and rant for 10 minutes.

http://www.house.mo.gov/bil...81/member/mem068.htm

It helps that he owns the Pharmacy we go to, and we can voice any concerns in person.

Brad

Interesting....

I've had this debate before and personally question the effectatiousness (sic) of Representatives that frequently ignore the wishes of those they were sent to Washington to represent. Something metamorphic seems to happen to people when they get sent to DC.

Perhaps that old adage of "absolute power corrupting absolutely" comes into play here....not saying the Reps have "absolute power"....but you get my drift.

Its the Senate that we could get rid of.

After all, the Senate is the best government money can buy.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: in these days of instant communications & mass communications - are "elected representatives" actually needed anymore? they were created to represent population groups, which now have the ability to actually speak for themselves. and, seemingly quicker than thru "proxy"/representative. yes, I can see that there is still need for people who actually propose & draft laws. but, that too can bee as simple as a Facebook post with likes & dislikes. obviously being simplistic, just trying to show a working model.

That would be a direct democracy(which is terribly inefficient and really doesn't work). Our government was never supposed to be that, and is often mis-represented as being a democracy. We are, in fact, a democratic republic. If you think our government is bloated and wasteful in its current form, imagine what it would be with every single drain on society having a direct say in things...

Look at how California votes on and passes "Propositions" and you'll get a good idea how well non-representative government might work.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Look at how California votes on and passes "Propositions" and you'll get a good idea how well non-representative government might work.

But we got a bullet train to nowhere coming! Beat that! I am hoping they continue to de-fund it and drop the bonds.

I am split on the proposition law. I like having the option but too many are special interest. It's easy to vote knee-jerk. On the other hand, sometimes you have to bypass the legislature. Some proposition are needed.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 07-29-2011).]

quote Originally posted by TK: But we got a bullet train to nowhere coming! Beat that! I am hoping they continue to de-fund it and drop the bonds. I am split on the proposition law. I like having the option but too many are special interest. It's easy to vote knee-jerk. On the other hand, sometimes you have to bypass the legislature. Some proposition are needed.

If they are really needed than they can go through the Legislature.
Brad

The problem isn't really that we have representatives. The problem is from the early 1900's, when the Senate was changed from being appointed by the State, to being elected by the people. This created a duality that wasn't required, and was destructive.

When senators were appointed by the States, it gave the States a voice in the federal government, and balanced the power that the House has as a representative of the people. We no longer have that balance, and the People are represented twice. People tend to elect whoever promises them the most, and so now both house and senate work in concert for the entitlement mindset.

The states have lost that voice they had, and as a result, the Federal Government hands down largely unconstitutional unfunded/partially funded mandates. Sure, the states could buck that, but the Federal gooberment has all the power, as the states have allowed themselves to be hostage to the almighty federal dollar. (like welfare, but with larger numbers!)

The founding fathers had it right, but we screwed it up......

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. We need more well armed sheep contesting some of the fecal material being foisted upon us.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: The founding fathers had it right, but we screwed it up......

They always did have it right. Too bad their intentions have been perverted ( or downright ignored ) to advance personal agendas.

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: If they are really needed than they can go through the Legislature. Brad

Considering the legislature often doesn't address the people will, I still think proposition have a place in the process.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: The problem isn't really that we have representatives. The problem is from the early 1900's, when the Senate was changed from being appointed by the State, to being elected by the people. This created a duality that wasn't required, and was destructive. When senators were appointed by the States, it gave the States a voice in the federal government, and balanced the power that the House has as a representative of the people. We no longer have that balance, and the People are represented twice. People tend to elect whoever promises them the most, and so now both house and senate work in concert for the entitlement mindset. The states have lost that voice they had, and as a result, the Federal Government hands down largely unconstitutional unfunded/partially funded mandates. Sure, the states could buck that, but the Federal gooberment has all the power, as the states have allowed themselves to be hostage to the almighty federal dollar. (like welfare, but with larger numbers!) The founding fathers had it right, but we screwed it up...... Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. We need more well armed sheep contesting some of the fecal material being foisted upon us.

Very good point, but it raises the question... if the "state" appointed the Senators, I take it you mean the state government, which was elected by the people, right?
So it would appear to be a version of getting rid of the representative government in that regard.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Very good point, but it raises the question... if the "state" appointed the Senators, I take it you mean the state government, which was elected by the people, right? So it would appear to be a version of getting rid of the representative government in that regard.

In a manner of speaking, yes, I suppose so. But in the scope of the original topic, yes, we still need representatives.

I'm GLAD we are Constitutional Republic. Keeps the erosions of liberty at a slow pace.....

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Interesting.... I've had this debate before and personally question the effectatiousness (sic) of Representatives that frequently ignore the wishes of those they were sent to Washington to represent. Something metamorphic seems to happen to people when they get sent to DC. Perhaps that old adage of "absolute power corrupting absolutely" comes into play here....not saying the Reps have "absolute power"....but you get my drift.

Ah come on; they'll still represent you. You just have to pay more $ than the lobbyists, and then you'll be good to go.