Our Representatives Should Not Represent US

They should represent the collective. These are the thoughts of the left. Manchin? No, he should not represent West Virginia. He should represent the collective. Sinema? No. she should not represent Arizona. She should represent the collective. Liz Cheney? No, she should not represent Wyoming. She should represent the lefty collective. I have grown up thinking that the representative you vote for should represent their constituents and yet the left would have us completely do away with that system and want representatives, no matter where they are from, to represent the collective. So, there is no point in contacting your representative or giving you your opinion as a constituent because once in office, your thoughts and opinions don't count, only the opinions of the collective count.

 

Yes, we should never allow out reps to think for themselves or stand up for their own values. They shpuld obey the collective that is their state.

 

Are we electing representatives or delegates?

The founders chose the word representative for a reason.

 

So they should do our thinking for us?

 

That is what the founders wanted.

The choose the word representative.

Members of congress were always meant to represent their districts as they saw fit.

Surely we respect the founding fathers.

 

I would propose that only citizens of a particular state can donate to a candidate. As you say these candidates are supposed to represent the state not out-of-state mega-rich, many of whom probably could find the state on a map.

 

I respect the work of our founders, but do not trust politicians. They work in the interest of those helping them get elected/reelected. They represent those with lobbying money.

 

I know.

We need to overturn Citizens United.

Groups shouldn't be able to contribute unlimited money to political goals. Whether it be a corporation or a LGBTQ non profit.

 

Fair enough. I would also require all meetings between politicians and lobbyists to be live streamed and private communications a crime.

 

I would extend that to saying that you can only have donors for the type of area you are running for. If it's just a county then it is a county, if it is a district then it is a district, etc.

 

That's a good idea.

 

What is the "lefty collective", is that the antithetical component of society to the "tRaitorTRumpy" collective? I think your all inclusive claim that the "left" would have us do away with anything is erroneous on the face of it. Anytime you vote for a politician you have to accept and hope that you are voting for their "principals. The good folks of Wyoming exercised their Constitutional Right to choose someone else. Representative Cheney could not in good conscience support tRaitor tRumps big lie and attempt to overturn and election and, in the process, overthrow our Government, and was willing to accept the consequences. That's what happened yesterday, that's all that happened yesterday.

The "Left" had very little if anything to do with it. Your manufactured "collective" Bullshit is just an attempt to disparage the "left" (which you cannot define but I assume are YOUR Countrymen) because you delight in grinding that "lefty" ax.

 

I do think that some people should be careful what they wish for.

If we just look at the population as a whole, Democrats have gotten more votes than Republicans nationally in almost every election for about the last 30 years.

 

The founders came up with a simple solution for unacceptable behavior, its called elections.

The other thing is that representatives are supposed to represent all of their constituants not just those who voted for them.

 

Ummmmmmmmmmmm, pretty much everyone on the left wanted to hang both Manchin and Sinema for not going along with the collective. And, they wanted Liz Cheney to also go against her very own constituents and side with the collective.

 

And the collective on the right turned on Cheney after she went against Donald Trump....just like they did against the other Republicans that did the same, with the exception of one or two of them.

You can pretend that only the other side is a collective while your side all thinks as individuals but it really just makes you look like an idiot.

 

I'm saying that representatives should represent their districts, states, or whatever. In Liz Cheney's case, she did not represent Wyoming. She represented herself. And, in Manchin's case the collective did not want him representing his constituents and the same goes for Sinema. Don't you think representatives should represent their constituents?

 

I think she did, as she voted with Republicans 93% of the time. Her role as a Republican involved in the impeachment trials and the 1/6 hearings are not the same as representing her constituents with her votes on policy.

Ultimately, voters in Wyoming can choose whomever they want for whatever reason they want, no argument there. They've just chosen to use fealty to a politician as the deciding factor of their vote. They're allowed to do it, and everyone is allowed to have an opinion about it.

But you can't deny that the Republican collective turned their backs on her, both in and out of Wyoming. It's no different at all to what progressives have done with Manchin and Sinema.

 

No she didn't and you know it. That's why they packed her bags for her and shipped her out the door.

 

Dude represent means represent not I'll do what ever I damn well please and hell with the people who voted for me. Note the founders also would have been appalled at the idea of people serving 50 plus years in Congress.

 

If she voted with Republicans 93% of the time - how can you argue that she didn't represent the ideas of
her party - EXCEPT when it came to an individual who she thought had broken his trust to the voters HE represented ... so you are not
talking about representing the voters, you are talking about bowing to Trump.

 

Percentage isn't the only criterion; she could have voter with your caucus on naming post offices or trivial issues and opposed them on more important matters. The fact she went all with the J6 committee negates a lot.

 

So Trump is more important than policy to you. Got it.

 

People have just simply grown extraordinarily intolerant of disagreement. They really don't seem to like the idea that they have to get along with people they may not agree with. It was a lesson most of us would have learned in childhood but this millennial and gen z seem to be struggling having to learn it as adults. Our society has really done a disservice to my generation and the one that follows

 

Well it's Trump's policies that I like maybe not so much as policies I've disagreed with a couple of them. It's his following through and she tells you he's going to do something he's going to do his damnedest to do it that's refreshing in a politician.

And the reason why he took the Republican party by storm is because he said and then subsequently did a lot of things that Republicans have been wanting their politicians to do for quite some time yet they've failed.

I think this represents a new era in the Republican party where Republicans are going to expect more from their politicians and if they don't deliver they get canned. That's how it's supposed to work. You guys can do the same thing with the Democrat party.