In a message dated 2003-10-29 21:32:40 Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The average citizen does not have the time, the background, or the resources
to gather information and develop informed decisions about the broad ranging
subjects involved in managing and governing this nation. I live in a
democratic republic, not a democracy. Representatives should represent their
elector's interests, not act on elector's whims.
For example, the average citizen has spent less than 2 seconds thinking about
weights, measures, and metrication. The federal government, on the other
hand, funds NIST and (in part) the BIPM to research this subject in depth,
and has passed a good deal of legislation over the past 150 years tying us
ever-closer to the metric system. This never would have happened had our
representatives polled their electors and acted on their uninformed opinions.
I pay my representative (through taxes) to do the ground work for me so that I
don't have to! If, overall, I don't feel a representative is doing a good
job or if I feel he or she is not representing my interests, then I'll vote
for someone else next time.
That's not to say that if someone has a particular interest or knowledge or
strong opinion about a subject that they shouldn't communicate their concerns
directly to their elected officials. In this case, we become part of the
network of information that our reps. should be using to make informed
decisions.
John
True. The problem is that Congress listens to the whiners and complainers, treats their opionions as broadly representative, and acts on them. So if, let's say, legislation was introduced to finally metricate fully the USA: out of 1000 people (I'm guessing here) 500 wouldn't care, 450 would like it and say nothing, 10 would like it and write in, and 40 would complain vociferously. Congress would see it as 40-10 against and treat that as the broad opinion of all the people!
Carleton
|
