joseph2k wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

Noway2 wrote:
I think it is time for a change. The concept of having to elect a
representative to go travel to a meeting location to represent 'your'
interests has out lived its usefulness.
Geography is only part of the reason for representatives. The
representative is also there to be a full time student and arbitrator of
the nuances of governing
the people. He is there to employ a staff of experts on a wide variety of
subjects
that affect governance.
Except that don't, never did, and never will. That will not help them get
(re)elected.

Hmm, my state senator does, and so does my representative. They both have
staffs that are responsible for making laws, and conducting the other aspects
of governing. I have met them.

It is their full time job so it doesn't have to
be your full time job.
If they could only do it, they lack the skills, the will and the
temperament.

Cite examples.

If the people are to become competent experts on all of the finer details
of governing, they are going to have to have access to the information
necessary to make these decisions, and they are going to have to spend a
great deal of time studying and
understanding this information down to the tiniest detail.
The existing popularity contest winner politicians clearly do not.

Cite examples.

In order to be
a fair representation, they will have to study *all* the details... that
is clearly impossible. No one's life is that big, and all encompassing.
Sure they are, just ask Hillary of Dubya.

You are just spouting again.

Further, the "will" of the people will be profoundly influenced by the
authors of
the sources of information available to the people. News organs will
become the
true holders of power in such a representativeless government.
That wasn't news 150 years ago, what makes you think it is news now?
They will
tell you
what is important, and how you should think about that subject. From
there, it will all be a popularity contest.


Representativeless government? No thanks!

-Chuck
I find it interesting that you have shot yourself in the foot so
consistently.

I find it interesting that you think anyone would take your statements
as fact.

-Chuck