Journal pudge's Journal: Lobbyists 24
Check this out. Leftists attacking Hillary Clinton over lobbyists.
She said, "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." Someone replies, "I see this as Hillary's first Gaffe of the primary. Are americans in Iowa and New Hampshire going to believe lobbyists work for them?"
I don't know if they will believe it, but since it is true, they certainly should. Clinton is right.
The NRA represents me, and millions of others; the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence represents thousands themselves. There are many lobbyists working on abortion, the environment, and, of course, retired people, with the AARP representing 35 million people.
Granted, most of the billions spent on lobbying come from business interests, but even there, you've often got interests not exclusively in favor of the business, especially when it comes to health care lobbying. But even with business lobbying, and so on, these lobbyists do represent us, often. Apple Computer spent over one million on lobbying efforts in 2006, and much of that had to do with various regulations that would otherwise make our computers cost more, or have less functionality.
Sure, Apple is working for itself, but it is working for my personal interests, too. And probably yours too, if you're reading this, since these things affect the entire computer industry.
You don't have to like the system we've got -- I sure don't -- but we can attack the system without making blanket attacks on the motives of the people involved in that system. Certainly, not all lobbyists "work for us," but to some degree or another, many of them do.
Demonizing is easy. Being thoughtful is hard.
Lobbying != democracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I never understand why some people seem to think a republic can't be democratic. If monarchies can be democratic, then surely so can republics? Not every republic is the same. Turkmenistan is a republic, but so is the US, and so are Germany and France.
Re: (Score:2)
I never understand why some people seem to think a republic can't be democratic.
In the sense of direct voting for everything, our Republic cannot be Democratic.
But will that person represent you? Only if he's actually elected. And the way the US system is organised, voting for anyone other than the two primary candidates is pretty much throwing away your vote.
Tell that to Jesse Ventura.
What if neither of the two main candidates represents your opinion very well?
Then you're in a small minority. The reason why the two parties have most of the power is because they DO represent most Americans pretty well. You want democracy, so why are you dismissing the democratically chosen parties?
But at the cost of turning the system from a democracy into a plutocracy.
It's not.
Big companies have more lobbying dollars than you have.
And big companies don't elect people, we do.
I think it would be better to have the opinion of the people represented proportionally in parliament itself.
We do not choose representatives to push our opinion. We choose them to make decisions. Else why bother having represe
Re: (Score:2)
I think it actually could, but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about representation, and you're dodging the issue with a straw man.
A single governor justifies the entire system? Besides, a single seat office like governor is irrelevant to the issue of proportional representation. And laws aren't made by governors and presidents, they're made in parliaments and congress. That'
Re: (Score:2)
In the sense of direct voting for everything, our Republic cannot be Democratic.
I think it actually could, but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about representation, and you're dodging the issue with a straw man.
a. It can't.
b. It is.
c. No, you're not.
d. No, I am not.
What you said was: shouldn't the issues the submitter mentions really be determined by popular vote? That is not about representation. That is about bypassing representation to decide issues via direct vote.
And the way the US system is organised, voting for anyone other than the two primary candidates is pretty much throwing away your vote.
Tell that to Jesse Ventura.
A single governor justifies the entire system?
No. A single counterexample disproves your absolute statement.
Besides, a single seat office like governor is irrelevant to the issue of proportional representation.
Some legislators who are not of the top two parties also win occasionally (see Joe Lieberman for a recent example, although of course he's different, being an incumbent, but there ar
Re: (Score:2)
Lobby groups may be an acceptable surrogate in the absense of actual democracy, but shouldn't the issues the submitter mentions really be determined by popular vote?
Of course not. Who represents us is subject to popular vote.
But instead of having politicians listen to lobby groups, I'd rather simply fix the democratic system.
That assumes there's something wrong with our system. What's wrong with it?
Also, out of curiousity, have you ever read The Federalist Papers?
Re: (Score:2)
95% of the population is against killing kittens.
55% of the population feels strongly against gun control.
45% of the population feels is either pro-gun control or doesn't care.
Representative Candidate A is pro-kitten, pro-gun control. Representative Candidate B is anti-kitten, anti-gun control. Which Candidate is likely to win, and how do you prevent that candidate from using their "mandate" to misrepresent the majority on either the kitten-killing or the gun-control issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that a system that leads to situations where the will of the majority cannot be obeyed is wrong.
So if 55 percent of the people want to take away the right of blacks to vote, and the system won't allow it because it is unconstitutional and more than a majority is required to change that ... that system is wrong?
I also believe that a system that forces people to compromise their own beliefs in order to support a candidate based having some fraction of their beliefs in common is wrong.
So ALL representation systems are wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
If bad people outnumber good people, no system will save us.
So ALL representation systems are wrong?
All representation systems that demand that a group of people must choose one and only one representative who must represent each and every one of them in all possible situations have something wr
Re: (Score:2)
So if 55 percent of the people want to take away the right of blacks to vote, and the system won't allow it because it is unconstitutional and more than a majority is required to change that ... that system is wrong?
If bad people outnumber good people, no system will save us.
That was nonresponsive. Can you answer the question?
So ALL representation systems are wrong?
All representation systems that demand that a group of people must choose one and only one representative who must represent each and every one of them in all possible situations have something wrong with them.
Why? I don't think there's anything at all wrong with our Constitutional system of representation. Simply saying it's wrong doesn't make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the system would be wrong. Or, how about this for an answer as loaded as the question: if 51% of the people decided that blacks should be able to vote, it shouldn't take 342 days [usconstitution.net] to get around to making the change.
Simply saying it's wrong doesn't make it so.
Simply saying it's not wrong doesn't make it so. What is the purpose of an elected representative government if not to represent the will of the electorate?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you answer the question?
Yes, the system would be wrong.
So you think that in such a case we SHOULD take away the unalienable rights of blacks, just because a majority wants to.
Or, how about this for an answer as loaded as the question
Perhaps you don't know what "loaded" means in this context. The question was not loaded. It represents the very reason we have a republic instead of a democracy. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 [federali.st]: "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government ... enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other cit
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and if a majority wants to give them back, we SHOULD give them back. Remarkable idea, that.
Perhaps you don't know what "loaded" means in this context.
Selecting an example that is emotionally charged? Nawwwww.
To protect the rights of the electorate, first and foremost, which democracies are incapable of doing.
The unalienable rights of child rapists and other felons? Rhode Island theo
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that in such a case we SHOULD take away the unalienable rights of blacks, just because a majority wants to.
Yes, and if a majority wants to give them back, we SHOULD give them back. Remarkable idea, that.
Give? You mean take. And yes, it is a remarkable, for how bad an idea it is. We rejected that terrible idea 220 years ago, and we have continually reaffirmd the rejection of that idea.
Perhaps you don't know what "loaded" means in this context.
Selecting an example that is emotionally charged? Nawwwww.
I know of no issue of fundamental rights -- which is the point -- that is NOT emotionally charged.
To protect the rights of the electorate, first and foremost, which democracies are incapable of doing.
The unalienable rights of child rapists and other felons? Rhode Island theoretically gave them back last year after 51.5% of the public voted to change their Constitution [rifuture.org]
So? Are you arguing that is a good thing, or a bad thing? Seems to me it has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. How do you think this is relevant?
(their representatives have ignored such tiny details in the past [projo.com]).
And? What's that got to do with anything?
Have you actually
Re: (Score:2)
After pressing me on voting rights and suddenly switching to civil rights, I incorrectly believed you were connecting them.
It never implies, as you apparently assume, that a republican form of government is perfect.
I have read Federalist 10, and you are indeed correct it admits that the republican form of government isn't perfect. So now we're back to that assumes there's something wrong with our system. W
Re: (Score:2)
It never implies, as you apparently assume, that a republican form of government is perfect.
I have read Federalist 10, and you are indeed correct it admits that the republican form of government isn't perfect. So now we're back to that assumes there's something wrong with our system. What's wrong with it?
Implied in my statement, given the context (which was basically "democracy is better"), was: what's wrong with it that is better in a "democracy," that we should consider abandoning ours for that? I am sorry for not being more clear.
Should we not strive for better?
If better is possible, sure.
Obviously by your metric of guaranteeing the rights of the people, unfettered mob rule cannot improve the situation. How about creating some new form of governance then?
Such as? I am not tied so much to the system itself as I am to the principles the system is designed to uphold. I don't want to go back to state legislature selection of Senators (repeal of the 17th Amendment) because "that's the way it was set
Re: (Score:1)
Democracy doesn't work out so well in practice because nothing ever gets done, or the rights of minority groups disappear under the jackboots of the majority. Just look at the mess of California, which has direct votes on certain issues. That hasn't fixed any of those problems, and the State is still in a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
I was kinda hoping it was a democratic republic. There are a lot of democratic republics (and democratic constitutional monarchies, for that matter) that actually do quite well. But they do quite well in a democratic way.
An autocracy is much more effective yes. But will it do what the people wan
Re: (Score:2)
Of course lobbying isn't the same thing as democracy. The US isn't a democracy though. It's a republic. That's a good thing.
I was kinda hoping it was a democratic republic. There are a lot of democratic republics (and democratic constitutional monarchies, for that matter) that actually do quite well. But they do quite well in a democratic way.
Not if they have direct voting on most major issues, no. That never works well.
Democracy doesn't work out so well in practice because nothing ever gets done,
An autocracy is much more effective yes. But will it do what the people want? Plenty of western democracies manage to work quite well.
No, they do not.
or the rights of minority groups disappear under the jackboots of the majority.
If you don't represent those minority groups, yes. But in a good democratic system, those minorities should be represented, and that means they have a voice in government.
That's just false. In any democratic system, the majority rules, and the minorities rights will not be respected unless the majority chooses to do so, which means they are not rights at all, but mere privileges to be handed out or taken away by a whim.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying Switzerland doesn't work? That's the prime example of a country that holds a referendum for nearly every decision of reasonable importance. But most western democracies actually don't have referendums or have them rarely. My country (Ne
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of democratic republics (and democratic constitutional monarchies, for that matter) that actually do quite well. But they do quite well in a democratic way.
Not if they have direct voting on most major issues, no. That never works well.
Are you saying Switzerland doesn't work? That's the prime example of a country that holds a referendum for nearly every decision of reasonable importance.
(Emphasis added by me.)
Um, well, no. That's not true at all. They've never had more than 10 referenda per year over a 10-year period, and usually average far less. And indeed, this is not "democracy" anymore than representative democracy is, because you need a "double majority" to pass anything, which is a system actually borrowed from the U.S.: you need not only a majority of voters, but a majority of states with a majority of voters.
Indeed, Switzerland is less a direct democracy than my home state of