Even more problematic stuff

[Brian Peacock]

they are charged with a duty to represent the interests of all citizens, not just those who voted for them.

Not all issues have a middle ground.

Sometimes, a whole bunch of people want something (like open borders) and a whole bunch of others want something directly opposed (secured borders)

When that happens, seeking the middle ground is ignoring at least one group.

Divesting a clause of its context is unhelpful, nor does it address the point being made. I was not talking about possible policy compromises but a principle upon which representative democracy operates. I would say that it is this principle which underpins everything to do with democracy as we understand it, a principle which holds that it is the electorate who choose their elected representatives, rather than the elected choosing their electorate. It is a principle worth defending and one that should not be compromised imo. Now, tell me again how people holding different views on a policy matter, like, say, border security, compromises this basic principle?

[JimC]

they are charged with a duty to represent the interests of all citizens, not just those who voted for them.

Not all issues have a middle ground.

Sometimes, a whole bunch of people want something (like open borders) and a whole bunch of others want something directly opposed (secured borders)

When that happens, seeking the middle ground is ignoring at least one group.

What utter nonsense. Of course there can be a series of intermediate positions here, including a range of restrictions on border entry, from minimal to heavy.

[Cunt]

they are charged with a duty to represent the interests of all citizens, not just those who voted for them.

Not all issues have a middle ground.

Sometimes, a whole bunch of people want something (like open borders) and a whole bunch of others want something directly opposed (secured borders)

When that happens, seeking the middle ground is ignoring at least one group.

Divesting a clause of its context is unhelpful, nor does it address the point being made. I was not talking about possible policy compromises but a principle upon which representative democracy operates. I would say that it is this principle which underpins everything to do with democracy as we understand it, a principle which holds that it is the electorate who choose their elected representatives, rather than the elected choosing their electorate. It is a principle worth defending and one that should not be compromised imo. Now, tell me again how people holding different views on a policy matter, like, say, border security, compromises this basic principle?

It doesn't compromise it, that's not what I'm saying.

It ignores the losers, I guess.

Like how the democrats in the US lost their shit in the 2016 election, when they didn't get their way. There is no middle ground between Drumpf and Crooked Hillary. (well, there was that Sanders guy, but he was consumed or something)

[Brian Peacock]

they are charged with a duty to represent the interests of all citizens, not just those who voted for them.

Not all issues have a middle ground.

Sometimes, a whole bunch of people want something (like open borders) and a whole bunch of others want something directly opposed (secured borders)

When that happens, seeking the middle ground is ignoring at least one group.

Divesting a clause of its context is unhelpful, nor does it address the point being made. I was not talking about possible policy compromises but a principle upon which representative democracy operates. I would say that it is this principle which underpins everything to do with democracy as we understand it, a principle which holds that it is the electorate who choose their elected representatives, rather than the elected choosing their electorate. It is a principle worth defending and one that should not be compromised imo. Now, tell me again how people holding different views on a policy matter, like, say, border security, compromises this basic principle?

It doesn't compromise it, that's not what I'm saying.

Then your point, such that it is, is indistinguishable from random babble. Why quote a post only to ignore any or all of the points made therein?

It ignores the losers, I guess.

My point, such that it was, is that fixing the system--once you have gained power--against one's losing opponents is going a lot further than simply ignoring the wishes of those who didn't vote for you. What is being ignored though is the fact that many people vote for this-or-that party in spite of their disagreement with that party's policy proposals on a this-or-them matters. To vote Republican or Democrat is not to grant a license to Republicans or Democrats to do whatever they want is it?

Like how the democrats in the US lost their shit in the 2016 election, when they didn't get their way. There is no middle ground between Drumpf and Crooked Hillary. (well, there was that Sanders guy, but he was consumed or something)

I'm going to give it one more go before writing you off as trolling. First you must divest the issue from any particular policy proposal or objective forwarded by any particular party.

The operation of a representative democracy must be ordered in such a way that it does not limit or favour the ideals or aims of one political group or another. Those duly elected become trustees of the common interest and derive their authority from the entire electoral body--and not just from those who voted for them--but only to the extent that they are, and can be, held accountable by the electorate. When one group, who have been duly elected by fair means, use the powers invested in them (primarily, but not exclusively, legislative) to instrumentally secure power for themselves or favour their own ideals and/or limit the political opportunity or participation of others, then they have violated this basic principle and are no longer truly accountable to the electorate - and concomitantly they should forfeit their right to exercise those powers.

[Cunt]

You keep referring to cases where there is a middle ground.

How about the death penalty question? In Canada, they polled the populace, got an answer, and ignored the majority in favour of status quo.

Everyone who expressed their wishes is in the group 'voters', and more than half of them were ignored. No middle ground, no nuance, just rejected.

(by the way, I would vote against a death penalty, but that is really beside the point)

Of course they have to represent everyone, but they only have to gain some votes to be in power.

Where do you see the middle ground between deporting all illegal immigrants vs sanctuary cities. Those ARE extremes, but most people would come down on one side or the other.

[BarnettNewman]

How about the death penalty question? In Canada, they polled the populace, got an answer, and ignored the majority in favour of status quo.

When was this?

[Cunt]

How about the death penalty question? In Canada, they polled the populace, got an answer, and ignored the majority in favour of status quo.

When was this?

A few decades ago (late 80's I think)

The country responded with a 'kill the fuckers'. Canada chose to ignore the results of the poll.

[BarnettNewman]

How about the death penalty question? In Canada, they polled the populace, got an answer, and ignored the majority in favour of status quo.

When was this?

A few decades ago (late 80's I think)

The country responded with a 'kill the fuckers'. Canada chose to ignore the results of the poll.

So some poll in the 80s. Ok.

[Cunt]

Yes, is there something wrong with that example of government ignoring the wishes of their population?

Or of a clear decision, with no middle ground?

[BarnettNewman]

Yes, is there something wrong with that example of government ignoring the wishes of their population?

Or of a clear decision, with no middle ground?

It’s a wishy washy memory of something maybe happening almost 40 years ago. Pretty weak, but go you!

[laklak]

Maybe you could sort of kill them. Chop off some limbs or something.

[JimC]

I suppose the death penalty is fairly binary (you either have one or you don't), but even then there can be degrees of application. You could have the death penalty apply automatically to any convicted murderer, no special pleading allowed. Or you could have it available, but only used in the most extreme cases...

[Sean Hayden]

I don't have enough confidence in a jury to support the death penalty.

[BarnettNewman]

What cunt is failing to remember is that reinstating capital punishment would nullify any number of extradition treaties Canada has with other nations. Like Brexit, people don’t always understand the ramifications of their desires.

[laklak]

Me neither, though it's hard to argue that Ted Bundy didn't deserve it. Personally I'd rather they kill me quick than stick me in prison for life, particularly in some SuperMax hellhole. Plus it's expensive as shit to execute anyone, I read some stats that said it costs Florida at least $10,000,000 for all the appeals and whatnot for a single case. We've got 348 on death row as of last November, so that's a lot of money.