4 ms·

Yes it does suck how corrupted people become when they wield power. It almost puts into question the entire idea of a representative democracy.

by qudat 8y ago

cr0sh 8y ago
> the entire idea of a representative democracy I think the problem is that our politicians, by and large, don't really represent us. That is, the "template" if you will, of a politician, tends to not fit what the general average person is. For instance - how many politicians are middle class? I'd wager that none of them are, for even if they were prior to being elected, after they are elected they would get a salary that is much larger than a standard middle-class salary. Instead - our representatives (mainly federal - state level is a different story, but there are analogies) all are of the "wealthy class" - not the middle class, which is kinda who you would expect to represent everyone (that is, the "average"). Note that I am speaking from a US-centric perspective, but I bet it's the same elsewhere. So why do we keep electing the same template of people to the same positions, and expect a real change? I don't know. Part of it may be the whole "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing. Part of it may be corruption once they get into power (that is, why would a middle-class person, upon obtaining a much larger salary that bumps them out of middle class and into wealthy - change that?). This is really the heart of the matter; it isn't that our representatives only represent companies, but rather that they don't represent us (that is, the average American) period - as people we can really relate to, that they can relate to - because of the wealth discrepancy. And it's not likely to ever change; I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't involve violence - and even if it did happen, how do you keep it from changing back (what incentivizes people to continue to stay representative of the people they represent)?
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Congresspeople make $174,000 a year which, while more than most Americans, is certainly not outside the norm for senior-level professionals in a variety of "normal" careers. Plenty of people you would consider "middle class" make 174k or more. To me "wealthy class" means people who have saved enough to never have to work again, which is by no means certain on a 174k salary.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >To me "wealthy class" means people who have saved enough to never have to work again, which is by no means certain on a 174k salary. In most of the world, it very much is.
- Faark 8y ago
  > I think the problem is that our politicians, by and large, don't really represent us. Not a native english speaker here, so I might miss a nuance. "Represent" as in "depict us" or as in "works for us"? It sounds like you would prefer to take random citizens and turn them into politicians. Wouldn't you rather have the best people working for you? Sure, understanding your client is necessary to represent (as in work for) someone and having the same background can be one way to do so. But just one way to tick one of many requirements. I'd guess the better question is how to elect better politicians. Money in politics and campaigning (tricky to solve) and FPTP voting leaving just two parties certainly doesn't help.

Yes it does suck how corrupted people become when they wield power. It almost puts into question the entire idea of a representative democracy.

by qudat 8y ago

Yes it does suck how corrupted people become when they wield power. It almost puts into question the entire idea of a representative democracy.

cr0sh 8y ago

> the entire idea of a representative democracy I think the problem is that our politicians, by and large, don't really represent us. That is, the "template" if you will, of a politician, tends to not fit what the general average person is. For instance - how many politicians are middle class? I'd wager that none of them are, for even if they were prior to being elected, after they are elected they would get a salary that is much larger than a standard middle-class salary. Instead - our representatives (mainly federal - state level is a different story, but there are analogies) all are of the "wealthy class" - not the middle class, which is kinda who you would expect to represent everyone (that is, the "average"). Note that I am speaking from a US-centric perspective, but I bet it's the same elsewhere. So why do we keep electing the same template of people to the same positions, and expect a real change? I don't know. Part of it may be the whole "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing. Part of it may be corruption once they get into power (that is, why would a middle-class person, upon obtaining a much larger salary that bumps them out of middle class and into wealthy - change that?). This is really the heart of the matter; it isn't that our representatives only represent companies, but rather that they don't represent us (that is, the average American) period - as people we can really relate to, that they can relate to - because of the wealth discrepancy. And it's not likely to ever change; I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't involve violence - and even if it did happen, how do you keep it from changing back (what incentivizes people to continue to stay representative of the people they represent)?

umanwizard 8y ago
Congresspeople make $174,000 a year which, while more than most Americans, is certainly not outside the norm for senior-level professionals in a variety of "normal" careers. Plenty of people you would consider "middle class" make 174k or more. To me "wealthy class" means people who have saved enough to never have to work again, which is by no means certain on a 174k salary.
- krapp 8y ago
  >To me "wealthy class" means people who have saved enough to never have to work again, which is by no means certain on a 174k salary. In most of the world, it very much is.
Faark 8y ago
> I think the problem is that our politicians, by and large, don't really represent us. Not a native english speaker here, so I might miss a nuance. "Represent" as in "depict us" or as in "works for us"? It sounds like you would prefer to take random citizens and turn them into politicians. Wouldn't you rather have the best people working for you? Sure, understanding your client is necessary to represent (as in work for) someone and having the same background can be one way to do so. But just one way to tick one of many requirements. I'd guess the better question is how to elect better politicians. Money in politics and campaigning (tricky to solve) and FPTP voting leaving just two parties certainly doesn't help.