I've gotten myself into a debate with another pro-gun person, and he believes that the NRA lobby is a good thing to have. I say that lobbying of any sort is complete bullshit because it amounts to the person with the most money gets the most influence, instead of the politician listening to his constituents.

Another thing I point out is that the NRA is a group that is funded by people all over the country, but it uses its money and influence to dictate legislation on the state level. This is no different from someone living in a state from influencing the decisions of another state, which is complete and utter bullshit. If the majority of the people want gun control, the NRA has no business influencing the politicians otherwise.

Of course, this leads to the question of how to properly determine that the constituent's demands are met. We simply cannot seal politicians in a box with only a voting panel and a monitor telling him statistics on various issues. We can't just say that a politician cannot talk one-on-one with someone who has an agenda.

How can one balance personal contact (obviously having much influence) with meeting the demands of the constituents?

One on one is the issue. The supreme court has ruled in its infinite wisdom that money equals speech, so you can't really get rid of lobyists. The diparity comes from the fact that lobbyists tend to throw parties where they get to lobby many different congressmen at once. Now, these parties aren't the wsild, debauched events that they used to be, partly because of more media scrutiny, but also because everyone is worried that Lrry Craig still has cameras in all of the toilets.

So ideally, there should be a law that lobbyists can only petition congressmen who serve the district in which the company or group's headquarters reside. For instance, Microsoft would only be able to lobby congressment that represent Redmond, Wash. The NRA would anly be allowed to petition congressmen from Fairfax, VA, etc.

Something like that is what I was thinking as well. Except that national lobbies can only work with Congress and state lobbies taking money from people residing in that state would work on state congresses. I think that is a great step forward towards lobbying reform, but money still comes before people.

I talked about something similar here (https://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2158681

).

Basically:

1) Limit corporate donations
2) Close loopholes which allow corps to donate more money via satellite firms and charity events
3) Give citizens an allowance in the form of a cheque only valid as a political donation
4) Stop treating corporations as people in the legal sense.

It shouldn't.

It shouldn't.

So democracy should be limited to one vote every four years? Remember, only in the bastardised form of democracy we have today is successful lobbying representative almost exclusively of corporate interests.

Nobody in government should be able to take a lobbyist's money without notifying the public, his/her peers in Washington, and the media. I believe all lobbying activities should take place at press conferences. It should be illegal for lobbyists to meet in private with our leaders, to discuss lobbyist related activities. It should be a crime with a mandatory impeachment punishment. Whoever is taking the money needs to do it in a very public way, and put something in writing stating why they are taking it, and must submit to a press conference before the money is allowed to actually change hands.

Transparency in government works.

1) Eliminate corporations?
2) Eliminate the rules?
3) Have the government give handouts for votes?
4) Treat them as monkeys in a nonlegal sense?

So democracy should be limited to one vote every four years? Remember, only in the bastardised form of democracy we have today is successful lobbying representative almost exclusively of corporate interests.

Every 2 years in the US.

Return more powers to local levels: people don't have much of a voice when all the powers are centralised in the hands of a few.

That's basically the way I feel.

The bigger the majority gets, the further the minority is unrepresented. How can justice exist when leadership becomes a crapshoot for the difference between 51% and 49% of the country?

Every 2 years in the US.

So do you think a vote every two years is a representative democracy?

So do you think a vote every two years is a representative democracy?

It could be in theory. I say in theory because most of the voters in this country are too stupid to actually vote for someone that represents their views. It may happen at a very small scale every 4 years. But during midterm elections you have basically everyone voting based on party rather than the person. Like Adolf Hitler could be running as a Democrat in my state and district and he would get elected in because of that D after his name. Shit, my district is extremely Conservative and Green, yet people that actually vote still vote for the Democrat because of the D.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that our people are too stupid to have a representative democracy. The system is there, its just that the majority isn't smart enough to use it. Plus, it also gives them something to bitch about rather than taking personal responsibility for their own short comings.

People are stupid when it comes to voting because they're voting on things which they're not knowledgable about.

I hear people say shit like 'Obama will be good for the economy' and stuff, and it's ridiculous. They have no idea, they're just regurgitating what they're hearing in the media.

People should ONLY vote for their local representatives so they can vote on issues which immediately affect them. Like, whether they choose to increase local taxes to fund building a new school .etc When people are involved in politics which are relevant to them, they'll become more interested, and thus more knowledgable.

When people are involved in politics which are relevant to them, they'll become more interested, and thus more knowledgable.

Unless its being presented with something taboo, people, in general, are never going to be interested in politics. They want sex, junk food, and over top materialism. Real political issues have non of that. Local political issues definitely are no where near any of that. When people involve themselves into politics, they are generally voting for the prom king and queen. Personality, notable accomplishments, popularity, and outward appearance. Almost always they go for the quarterback and the head cheerleader. They never go for the geek. The know-it-all. Being a know-it-all is a burden in this society because purposely being ignorant is more socially acceptable than being at the top of the class. People fuck up their own lives and hate to see others who have theirs all sorted out.

How about a computer system, in which voters can sign up, give their email address, and voting district, and any time one of YOUR representatives accepts money from lobbyists, you are sent an email explaining how much, who the lobbying firm represents, and it's parent corporation?

Total government transparency.

Which is exactly why lobbying can be positive; it provides a platform for people who actually care about and are knowledgeable about a single issue to rally together and tell their supposed "representatives" what they would like them to represent.

There are two kinds of congress?

OMFG I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WiTH YOU

People should ONLY vote for their local representatives so they can vote on issues which immediately affect them. Like, whether they choose to increase local taxes to fund building a new school .etc When people are involved in politics which are relevant to them, they'll become more interested, and thus more knowledgable.

I absolutely agree with this.

That being said, what should we do with issues that do not immediately affect the individuals, or in the event of electing a president? What do you propose that we do?