Would it be an example for democracy that "ALL" politicians should fear public opinion, that "All" could be ousted by public demand, by a simple majority vote held annually? Or do they deserve "protection" for their entire term, so they can thumb their nose to the public majority at will? Maybe politicians are "smarter" than the majority? You buy that?
2007-07-20 06:25:01 · 8 answers · asked by edubya 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Let's vote them all out and enact term limits... :)
2007-07-20 06:32:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No they shouldn't "Fear" public opinion, but it would be nice if they actually listened to it. Today's day and age they can't get away with agree with a crowd of people here and then changing their view to appease the next crowd... But it seems they are still taught to use that tactic like we don't have the technology to reveal the things they say and do. Politicians need to catch up mentally with the times and realize there is no more of this hiding behind their Media dogs.
2007-07-20 06:39:53 · answer #2 · answered by polonium-210 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Looks good on paper. But you lose all continuity. And when was the General Public right the Majority of the time?
Do we have all the Inside info to do this?
Look at some of the absolute irrational and unfounded attacks on Bush, and Clinton before him.
Granted, they are not right all the time. But a revolving door of leaders make us look no better than the 3rd world countries we help all the time.
2007-07-20 06:36:37 · answer #3 · answered by Ken C 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, the recent deluge of calls on the immigration shamnesty bill sent them a message. They had to shut down the phone lines to congress members because of them. Yes, I believe the ones who squander our hard-earned tax dollars are finally understanding what the public will and won't allow. You have to realize that politicians, almost exclusively, are in the business of putting themselves (and their special interests) first. They are more sly than smart.
2007-07-20 06:56:35 · answer #4 · answered by Dan K 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you're caught with complicated part of the communicate, somewhat with the be unsleeping "could prefer to" in there. some argumenst incorporate: a million) degree exhibits dedication to getting to attraction to close and recognition that the candidate is unsleeping that they ddon't are conscious of all of it 2) stats (you will discover them extremely on the innovations superhighway) teach that a point will strengthen probability of wealth lots and somewhat each and every person is unsleeping you choose on money to suceed in politics 3) attending college aspects contacts necessary in politics 4) college admission is very a sparkling out for intelligence, skill to scientific care subject concerns, and wealth all necessary for policitcal fulfillment 5) college essenntial for a occupation in regulation it somewhat is the region a majority of applicants come from and you likely can argue a want for perfect governing (understand-how the regulation is very lots interest #a million for a political candidate) yet particularly, you have the extra good sie of the communicate via a procedures. solid fulfillment. you may return to a determination directly to learn and get a proportion of the senate that have stages inspite of the undeniable fact that it is going to in all probability be below one hundred% which although a severe determination could disprove the ""could prefer to" be a point holder"
2016-12-10 17:36:26 · answer #5 · answered by russ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is why Mr. Bush is called the leader of the free world The key word is leader
2007-07-20 06:38:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably not. The public seems to have a very short memory.
2007-07-20 06:27:56 · answer #7 · answered by Brian 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
They should, but they don't. Both parties realize the constituents would rather have their devil in, then the other party devil. The choices are always ...twiddle de and twiddle dum.
2007-07-20 06:29:37 · answer #8 · answered by F.U. BUDDY 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋