Politicians

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Why can't Politicians do what the people want?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Count the number of people who actually want the same thing. Then count the total number of people. I think you'll find a good answer in between there.

[drone]

Why can't Politicians do what the people want?
Becasue politicians are sociopaths.

[Slyspy]

Who are the people?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because populism leads to unpleasant results...

[a completely inoffensive name]

They can. There is just a greater economic and political incentive not to.

[Megas Methuselah]

Organize your militia and rebel. You're in Amerika, right?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Organize your militia and rebel. You're in Amerika, right?

That is not going to put any counter incentive on men with tanks and nukes.

[rory_20_uk]

Unless politicians have such vast amounts of money they have no need for more (and politicians seem to stretch the term "need"), they'll always be feathering their own nest. This trend has accelerated greatly over the last 50 years (Churchill retired almost a pauper, Blair whores to whoever has the money).

~:smoking:

[Decker]

At the OP,

Why can't Politicians do what the people want? Because they're politicians.


Organize your militia and rebel. You're in Amerika, right?I was always under the impression our rebellions were organized around tea ceremonies. I could be wrong.

[Slyspy]

I don't believe that Churchill died a pauper, though he certainly wasn't as wealthy as modern day politicans can become. Also there are better politicans to look to if you want ethics and accountability.

[rory_20_uk]

Here is a link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6233470.stm). He was lucky in that he had rich friends.

I did not intend to imply ethics or accountability in Churchill. He was well suited for WW2, but I doubt suited otherwise.

~:smoking:

[Skullheadhq]

Politicians aren't supposed to do what the people want, they're supposed to give a clear set of opinions and everyone who agrees can vote for them, and if you don't agree, you vote for one who does represent you.

And if the politician you voted for did no good you can always stop voting for him.

[Slyspy]

Here is a link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6233470.stm). He was lucky in that he had rich friends.

I did not intend to imply ethics or accountability in Churchill. He was well suited for WW2, but I doubt suited otherwise.

~:smoking:

At the risk of wasting breath on a moribund thread, I believe that on his death the Churchill estate was worth a few hundred thousand pounds. Not an insignificant sum, but I grant you not quite the same as ready cash either.

Shame really, but I'm sure that by and large similar opportunities for enrichment existed then as now, though the divide between new money and old my have been clearer.

[Beskar]

Why can't Politicians do what the people want?

Because different people want different things.

[Strike For The South]

Why can't Politicians do what the people want?

Because the people who scream the loudest know the least.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Two themes influence this:

1. There has always been a tension in representative government between politicians needing to represent/reflect the collective viewpoint of their constituency and needing to act on their more informed opinion so as to generate a better outcome for their constituency (whether or not the constituency agrees at the time). All pols in representative democracies -- and all of our states are such -- are always trying to balance both.

2. Systemic factors -- cost of re-election, personal pride, the sub-culture of the political set itself, etc. -- often function as additional sources of "input" into political decisions, even though some of these factors do not connect to the constituency at all.

If anything, it is surprising that they remain as connected and "representative" as they do.

[Beskar]

Two themes influence this:

1. There has always been a tension in representative government between politicians needing to represent/reflect the collective viewpoint of their constituency and needing to act on their more informed opinion so as to generate a better outcome for their constituency (whether or not the constituency agrees at the time). All pols in representative democracies -- and all of our states are such -- are always trying to balance both.

2. Systemic factors -- cost of re-election, personal pride, the sub-culture of the political set itself, etc. -- often function as additional sources of "input" into political decisions, even though some of these factors do not connect to the constituency at all.

If anything, it is surprising that they remain as connected and "representative" as they do.

There is also the difference between Delegate and Representative.

A delegate is some one assigned with doing a duty for others. (ie: Administrate an area)
A representative speaks on behalf of some one else's policy or purpose and doesn't have to personally share that view.