[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Hey, Californians. Dianne Feinstein knows better than you.

I serve as the senior senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office -- and with no other factors -- I would have to vote against this resolution.

She voted yes, of course. Screw the constituents.

Comments

[space-parasite.livejournal.com]

Arguably, this is the purpose of a representative democracy.

[bryant]

While I think both Kirby and Trip have a point, I still find it horrendously arrogant to say "you have spoken, and I am ignoring you." I also think this case points up some of the flaws in a representative democracy.

I also think that Feinstein has a solid history of ignoring her constituents. Note that she was pro-CDA, no matter what Silicon Valley may have thought. So it's not just this one incident, it's the trend.

Did Democrats get anything out of it? Well, it may or may not be significant that everyone mentioned as a possible 2004 candidate voted for the bill. I dunno if that's why; it's a pretty small set of data points.

[space-parasite.livejournal.com]

I didn't say it was a feature.

[kirbyk.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, are the people that call into a given Senator's office, let alone one on the extreme end of the political spectrum, a representative sample of the consituency?

And especially in a case like this - I doubt many people are going to call up Diane Feinstein and say "I support going to war in Iraq." You don't need to make your voice heard when you're easily winning. Voting based on what people call in and tell you, unsolicited, in a vote that's not expected to be close is a pretty lousy way to get the pulse of the people.

But if you really asked me why so many democrats, with the list weighted heavily towards the party leaders, voted for this, I smell a deal. Bush was probably likely to get it passed, but this is a case where it's politically advantageous to be seen with as broad a support base as he can get, and I bet that the Democrat leadership gave him this in exchange for something.

I sort of thing most people aren't really for or against an attack on Iraq. We don't really have the information one needs to know the true urgency of it. The U.N. does, and they judge no, but Bush does, and he judges yes, so who do you trust? And how much trust do you have in your own feeling, based on such scant reasoning? I don't feel like it's a good idea, going after Iraq, and I really don't like the precedents it may set, but I could be wrong.