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
I think the founders felt that the structure at the time would accomplish those things. Society and the world at large was a verrrry different place than today.
Remeber you had to be a land owner at the time – these were successful business people or tradesman. They performed the job of senator or congressman under a stipend, not a salary, as a gift returned to their nation. It was almost a volunteer position. They had families and jobs to go back to (think Cincinattus, the roman emperor).
Today the beaurocrat has become its own segment of society, with lifetime politician at its apex. It was never meant to function this way? The parasite has taken control of its host.
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 ?
Not necessarily. The law and the Constitution are not supposed to be absolute. If the wishes of the people are strong enough all laws and even the Constitution can be changed. Yea!! They are meant to be changed when necessary or when desired. Even the Government itself can be scrapped and replaced if its what the people want. The system is supposed to be constantly tested and challenged. That’s how we adapt to changing times and needs.
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
Voat harderer!!!
The republic fell long ago. You could say it was lost some autumn day in ’63.
1863?
Earlier. But you will never convince the sheeple, normies, cucks, and Mall Zombies that the fix was in from the start-The Constitutional Convention. The truth is out there.
Totally agree. Just wanted to play upon the ’63 comment above, though I would go back to at least the start of the war, but indeed, the Constitutional Convention was the death knell for the nation.