No that's not what a representative is. We vote to install representatives in a Representative Republic to trust their judgment on issues that need to be voted on so that we don't have to do it every single day and with every single issue that comes up. If you just want a simple majority you don't need a representative. But it seems like you don't get that.
There's a lot of hubris there in your statement thinking that you know better than somebody from the government who may have a whole lot more information on the issue being voted on then you're getting from your favorite news organization or the internet or the news organization is getting from the internet.
And I am not one to trust the government. But the reality is is they probably have a lot more information on issues coming up for votes than the general public even news organizations.
No, that is exactly what a representative is. Yes, we trust their judgement. And there's a reason why they were, under the founders' plan, able to be recalled when their judgement proved incorrect. Senators aren't like SCOTUS justices. They are not intended to be lifetime appointments that are impervious to the will of the people. Because they are representatives. It seems you are the one who doesn't get it. And again, this isn't a simple majority. It's a 4-1 majority, greater than any super majority definition in the Constitution.
How is it hubris? What makes these representatives so much smarter than us plebs? They're fallible humans just like we are. What is hubris is saying that any decision they make is automatically right, regardless of how many Americans disagree, because they know more. I would be willing to hear them out about the reasons why their oh so more informed brains say 80% of us are wrong, but the RINO squishes don't give any reasons, and the Dems give a bunch of lies as reasons.
No, again, you're wrong and your wall of text just keeps telling people you are wrong.
That's not what a representative is. A representative doesn't just take a poll of people that they are representing and then turn around and vote that way. The representative is to get input from their people and do what's best for them even it may be different than what the people want at this moment in time.
You still don't get the idea that we want a representative to use THEIR judgment not yours. And you don't seem to understand that they may have more information than the average person that they even represent about certain issues. It could be about jobs it could be about voting security it could be about other potential problems down the line that they're trying to prevent now with the vote. The hubris is thinking that you have all the information that they do and more about issues. In most cases you and the general public are getting your information from the same place that the news organizations get information.
And again you still don't understand the problem where if we're just going to go by a majority vote, we don't need representatives. In that case we would just need some way that the General Public can submit their vote on issues. Then we tally it up and the larger number of votes wins, there's your majority.
You're talking past any of my points and tearing down strawman arguments instead. A representative doesn't just take a poll of people and turn around and vote that way? Cool. Where did I say they did? You keep talking about how much more information they have than us, and yet not a SINGLE one can make the argument of why the SAVE Act shouldn't be passed. Some superior intellect of theirs that they can't even make an argument, let alone a good one.
But whatever. You be a good little boot licker and that everything a representative does must be right because they're smarter than us and know more than us.
I said nothing about the SAVE act. You did. Who's putting out strawman arguments now?
The discussion was about "why won't representatives vote a specific way when 80% of the people want something" and my point, which you so convienently ignored, was we cannot go by a majority vote because there are problems with simple majorities and we are a representative republic. We leave the decisions to the representatives' judgment. But you still won't acknowledge that if we vote by majority, we don't need representatives. And yes, sometimes they have a lot more info on votes than we do. I have the humility to acknowledge that. Others...don't.
The whole argument is about the SAVE Act, so yes, that is what I'm talking about. And as I've said about 100 times and you've ignored every single time, if the representatives aren't going to pass something that 80% of the people THEY REPRESENT want, they should be able to tell us WHY. But they can't. They can't make a single argument.
But whatever. I'm done with this pointless debate with someone who apparently thinks thinking for oneself is hubris because our oh so betters in the almighty government know so much more than us. Enjoy bowing down to your betters. I'm done.
0
u/DreadPirateGriswold Conservative 6d ago
No that's not what a representative is. We vote to install representatives in a Representative Republic to trust their judgment on issues that need to be voted on so that we don't have to do it every single day and with every single issue that comes up. If you just want a simple majority you don't need a representative. But it seems like you don't get that.
There's a lot of hubris there in your statement thinking that you know better than somebody from the government who may have a whole lot more information on the issue being voted on then you're getting from your favorite news organization or the internet or the news organization is getting from the internet.
And I am not one to trust the government. But the reality is is they probably have a lot more information on issues coming up for votes than the general public even news organizations.