If our nation is a Republic where the people elect their President, Vice-president and Congressmen, I would think that they would vote according to the wishes of their constituents. What do you call a government where votes are cast along party lines instead of the will of the people?
I posed this question to Grok:
When elected officials consistently vote along party lines rather than reflecting the direct wishes of their constituents, this can be described as a party-dominated system or, more critically, a form of partisan governance. In political science, this phenomenon is often associated with party discipline, where loyalty to the party’s agenda overrides individual or constituent preferences. If this behavior becomes systemic and significantly disconnects representatives from the will of the people, it may be characterized as a de facto oligarchy or party oligarchy, where a small group of party elites effectively controls decision-making. In extreme cases, critics might label it a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy, often aligned with party interests) or a managed democracy (where elections occur but are heavily influenced by party structures, limiting true representation).The term depends on the degree of deviation from the republic’s ideal of representing the people’s will. In practice, this issue often arises due to factors like gerrymandering, campaign financing, or polarized political cultures, which incentivize party loyalty over constituent interests.
I then asked what happens to this type of government:
As noted earlier, this type of government is often labeled a party oligarchy, partisan democracy, or managed democracy, depending on severity. If it fully detaches from the people’s will, it risks becoming a de facto autocracy masquerading as a republic.
When our nation began, there were about 30,000 counted citizens for v each US House member. With only white, male, property owners over 21 voting, in some districts there may have been only 5,000 voters per representative. Now, we c suffer under only 1 “representative ” for every 750,000 to nearly 1,000,000. Thanks to the Apportionment Act of 1910, it can ONLY GET WORSE as our population increases as NO INCREASE in the size of the House has been allowed since. Yes, another POS Progressive law. Just imagine how much greater our representation might be, or how much more in our control it might be were there 1 representative for every 30,000 citizens now.
I don’t think we ever had a true representative republic. The only way to assure that would be to ban lobbying, campaign contributions, and income other than the official government salary. Additionally we would need terms limits per class of office. All votes for bills would have to be supported by a survey of constituent opinion poll.
It could be done but our government would be drastically different. Imagine a country where politicians actually represented their constituency or faced termination. Constituency has to mean actual voters not corporations.
nice
The propaganda about We the People having power must be dismantled quickly. We must keep waking people up as fast as we can.
last and final box, the only one left?
“I would think that they would vote according to the wishes of their constituents.” Isn’t that just a minor variation of ‘democracy ?’ Shouldn’t our representatives be voting in accord with law and the Constitution ?
Officially, representatives are supposed to vote their conscience. The way the system was set up, honest people campaign by telling you what they stand for, and you vote according to their character and beliefs. This way, they never need to poll their constituents because people elected their representatives based on their character and what they say they stand for. That’s why Madison said that the constitution was made for a religious people and is wholy unsuitable for any other. Unfortunately, it does not work for us now because we collectively don’t operate that way. Our collective character has changed.
correct