What Does Being A Republic Mean Today?

yustr · 08-15-2006, 06:10 AM

In light of the stunning defeat of Sen. Lieberman last week I thought I’d raise the question of what it means to be a representative democracy – a Republic – in the 21st Century. This is not about Ned versus Joe, though we can use that as a starting point. My question is this:

Should our representatives be more responsive now than in the past?

Is there an obligation to express the reasoned view of the community even if it differs from the personal view of the Representative? Or is it OK just to vote according to conscience and wait for the next election cycle for the people to speak?

The democrats in Connecticut have made their opinion known. Was Mr. Lieberman wrong in sticking to his convictions even when it has been clear for many months (years?) that they differed from the majority of his constituents? Who was he representing at that point? Clearly we don’t want “mob rule” to dictate policy. Nor should every vote be put before a poll. But has the model of democracy of the 18th Century been superseded?

Quote:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

Quote:

"A government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns: not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city or small township, but by representatives chosen by himself and responsible to him at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:33

I’ve said before that the role of law is to protect the minority from the majority. I believe strongly in this. But I think we’ve turned this idea on its head. We’re allowing a minority – those willing and able to buy influence – to dictate to the majority.

One idea: I think all elections should be publicly funded. Any attempt to give money (contribute) to an elected official should be treated as a bribe – for that’s exactly what it is, using money to influence the opinion. We’d have to address “issue” oriented campaigns which too often is just support/opposition in clown’s makeup.

bry623 · 08-15-2006, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

I’ve said before that the role of law is to protect the minority from the majority. I believe strongly in this. But I think we’ve turned this idea on its head. We’re allowing a minority – those willing and able to buy influence – to dictate to the majority.

One idea: I think all elections should be publicly funded. Any attempt to give money (contribute) to an elected official should be treated as a bribe – for that’s exactly what it is, using money to influence the opinion. We’d have to address “issue” oriented campaigns which too often is just support/opposition in clown’s makeup.

You are starting to sound like me on this. So much has been changed from political correctness that we are going away from the roots of what made this country what it was.

Being a republic means that we all have an acitve hand in choosing those who govern. Alas, many do use that power.

It was nice to see CT voice their displeasure with Leiberman. However, what was it, 52% of democrats said no to him. Taking into account turnout and the overall registered voting population, say maybe only 30% of Connecticut told him no.

yustr · 08-15-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bry623

You are starting to sound like me on this.

Uh oh. Better watch out for wayward meteors cause they world must be coming to an end...

bry623 · 08-15-2006, 09:51 AM

And I would have voted for Joe too!!!

**-=Rousseau=-** · 08-15-2006, 09:52 AM

It does seem like the minority is beginning to have more power, especially now in the age of the media. Low voter turnout and general public apathy have a lot to do with this. Most people just don't care about making a difference in government.

Also, it is increasingly hard for politicians to judge what the concerns of the majority ARE. One can tell the concerns of those who speak the loudest, or can observe polls, but how can one correctly judge the concerns of the majority? Polls do not accurately represent the nation as a whole unless one polled people from everywhere, North Dakota and such included, rural and urban. (The views of urban people often differ greatly from those of rural people)

BTW, I strongly agree with the idea of making election campaigns publicly funded.

08-15-2006, 09:51 AM	#4 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 11,692 OS: winxp pro sp2	And I would have voted for Joe too!!! __________________ "If you aren't a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative when you are 50, you have no brain"

08-15-2006, 09:52 AM	#5 (permalink)
-=Rousseau=- Biker, Geek and Jock Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Nashvegas Posts: 827 OS: Windows 7 Ultimate My System	It does seem like the minority is beginning to have more power, especially now in the age of the media. Low voter turnout and general public apathy have a lot to do with this. Most people just don't care about making a difference in government. Also, it is increasingly hard for politicians to judge what the concerns of the majority ARE. One can tell the concerns of those who speak the loudest, or can observe polls, but how can one correctly judge the concerns of the majority? Polls do not accurately represent the nation as a whole unless one polled people from everywhere, North Dakota and such included, rural and urban. (The views of urban people often differ greatly from those of rural people) BTW, I strongly agree with the idea of making election campaigns publicly funded. Last edited by -=Rousseau=-; 08-15-2006 at 09:55 AM.