Monday, March 03, 2014

What does "Representative Government" mean?

I'm mystified.

I have a degree in this stuff... and I know what they taught us.

I have 6 years on legislative staff, so I observed it up close and personal.

People are, allegedly, supposed to matter in this system.  But they sure don't seem to in the eyes of many on the left.

Agendas appear far more important than the will of the people in government.  At the state level, the repeatedly-passed initiative requiring a 2/3rds vote to raise taxes is thrown out by the state supreme court as a violation of the state constitution.  The obvious and rapid solution?

Refer the initiative to the people in the form of a referendum.

That's what a responsive, representative government would do.

So.... where is it?

Where's the referendum so the will of the people, repeatedly expressed at the polls, can become ensconced in the piece of paper that needs it?

Nowhere.  The powers in the legislature are not interested in enacting the will of the people.

I'm not surprised.  Locally, one of the representatives where the people of his district voted for this law 5 times over 10 years hated it so much, that he felt compelled to sue them to overturn their will.

Locally, we've been cursed by a county commissioner whose philosophy of government, boiled down to its essence, was this:
"And I've said it before: I don't speak for the people.. I will NEVER speak for "the people," I speak for Steve and some of you are going to agree with me and some of you aren't."
What a bizarre philosophy of governance.

(YouTube courtesy of Lew Waters)

The mayor of Vancouver and two of those from that city council voted in direct opposition.... known to them.... to the project and the ability to allow an out-of-state agency to exercise eminent domain in a blatantly unconstitutional way... again, ignoring the will of the people... even of just the city of Vancouver.

Leftists express an opinion that even though their candidates have lost.... badly... in their elections... the losing perspectives should supersede all others.

The latest example:
Tom Gibson And by that I meant Legislators like Pike that are doing a much better job of taking cues from and representing outside political interests by being very self serving by pandering to people that have had a very twisted version of the facts presented to them. True, light rail will cost big bucks if we put it in now. What isn't discussed is that it will cost even more when we have to put it in later. This is the same kind of disinformation that the NAZI Party used to gain power with about 30% of the vote by whipping up a small base with selective facts and failing to talk about what else was in store for the people that supported them. With quislings like Madore, Benton and Pike representing us our future is more uncertain than ever before.
Tom is one of the movers and shakers over at the C3G2 site where majority rule that conflicts with their perspectives is a thing of scorn asnd ridicule... what Tom refers to in others (but not himself) as "invective bile."

He attacks those who oppose his view while in office (Or out, for that matter) claiming they're
"... taking cues from and representing outside political interests by being very self serving by pandering to people that have had a very twisted version of the facts presented to them."
In short, those who oppose his view are, well, stupid... and only his way is the right way.

So, I admit it.  Our form of representative government seems to be designed, if these people are to be believed, only to elevate those who support their agenda while requiring those who don't to ignore the vote at the polls as if it never happened... and to be condemned and cursed by the losers if they don't go along with the program.

It's part and parcel of why Brancaccio hates Benton, hates Madore and hates Mielke... because those 3 and others didn't get the memo and, in fact, seem to strive to, for the most part, represent those who elected them.

What a bizarre concept.

This isn't what they taught me in those polisci courses.  We were taught there was a winning side and a losing side.  And if you lost, then you sucked it up and tried to do better next time.

If your view of the world loses at the polls, then you work harder and convince more people next time, or you change your view to something that will win at the polls next time.

That's the dichotomy the GOP faces now: locally, the messaging and the campaigning works extremely well.  Leftist resentment of their multiple losses boil over into hatred and the bizarre, anti-democratic idea that their votes should carry a disproportionate weight to the votes of those who disagree.

Nationally, they're listening to those who bear them ill will and panicking into becoming a version of the democrats.

The ideas are the kind of hatred that takes over their souls... the kind of hatred the Brancaccios and the Stuarts of the world count on.

The problem for the losers is that they, well, lost.  And no matter how much they yell, or scream or insult or belittle, it doesn't change anything: they still lost.

That's why the CRC isn't getting built.  That's why the gas tax is dead.  That's why we don't have an income tax .... that's why.... that's why...

Those who are elected have, I believe, a duty to reflect the values of those who elected them.  Those who represent the 49th do so, except when it interferes with their agenda.  Those in the 4 other districts of Clark County typically reflect the will and the values of their electorate... because so many in office below the state level here locally don't want to hear it... even when they know they're wrong.  

"Representative government" precludes the right to ignore the electorate.  This state's constitution reminds us in Article one, Section 1 that  "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed..."and that does not mean that an election abrogates the right of the people to demand the final say in anything... including the CRC Scam.

"Elections," we are told, "have consequences."  When you win, you win.  When you lose, you have no say... until you win.  Anything else is chaos.

And those who've lost... those who hate?

That's exactly what they want, because they believe that with it, they can win.

Are they right?

Not if I can help it.

No comments: