Would you vote for the notional Congressional candidate below

With politics being so ridiculously polar these days, I feel like there is actually a large swath of constituents that have zero actual representation.

Soooo. Would you vote for this notional person, described below?

Candidate is independent. Let's say he/she (will use "he" for the remainder for simplicity) has moderate stances for the most part. For hot button issues, supports some conservative ideals and some liberal. There's enough for everyone to like some of his positions, but dislike others.

Here's his campaign platform. "I will vote the will of my constituents." Regardless of party pressure, donors, lobbyists, etc., he's found a way to poll his constituents for each measure he votes on and will vote the majority, regardless of his own beliefs.

Clearly, big assumption is he actually has a way to poll his constituents. And somehow there's a way to verify those polled are his constituents.

Another hard to swallow assumption required... he actually does what he says he going to do. And he shows it. His votes are transparent. He publicizes his vote and shows the data collected that led to his vote.

Do you vote for him on his platform to be a true representative of his district's people?

a reply to: davegazi2

Follow up:

He gets elected. He does exactly as he said he'd do. But man, he voted for some stuff you didn't like, but has honest data showing that's what his constituents wanted.

Next election day...
(This may create a false dilemma) Do you vote for the man who represented his district's will, or do you vote against, because he voted a few times you individually did not agree with?

Thanks for your thoughts.

a reply to: davegazi2

Candidate is independent. Let's say he/she (will use "he" for the remainder for simplicity) has moderate stances for the most part. For hot button issues, supports some conservative ideals and some liberal. There's enough for everyone to like some of his positions, but dislike others.

I think we're past the point of pandering, status-quo government cretins.

Here's his campaign platform. "I will vote the will of my constituents." Regardless of party pressure, donors, lobbyists, etc., he's found a way to poll his constituents for each measure he votes on and will vote the majority, regardless of his own beliefs.

That would be great. In fact it's so great that that is exactly what most run on. While never really delivering....

Clearly, big assumption is he actually has a way to poll his constituents. And somehow there's a way to verify those polled are his constituents.

How would this work on say, multi line item bills? Furthermore, what steps would be taken to secure this process from being exploited?

Another hard to swallow assumption required... he actually does what he says he going to do. And he shows it. His votes are transparent. He publicizes his vote and shows the data collected that led to his vote.

See above regarding multi line item bills. Politicians votes are already recorded and publicly available.

Sounds better than most candidates.

I would vote for him if he added the caveat "... except when the legislation conflicts with the US Constitution."

Several points where it would get my vote:
1) 2 terms max.
2) He or she is willing to not take the life long pay, or any of the other perks for sitting in that position after leaving the position.

a reply to: davegazi2

I've never heard of a notional candidate, but it sounds interesting.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: davegazi2

I've never heard of a notional candidate, but it sounds interesting.

Me too I'm kind of laughing here.

a reply to: davegazi2

i've always said that every bill that is put forth and approved by both house and senate should go to the states for a limited time period say two or three weeks and the public vote yea or neigh. then the representatives and senators vote the people's will, and that every one of them be there and vote yea or neigh, no abstaining or not showing up, hell by abstaining or not showing up doing that their not even doing what they were sent and paid to do in DC.

then at least you'd have laws passed or not by the will of the people be them blanked up or not, instead of just one blanked up person that may have something to gain or lose by voting for what is best for the people.

I would never vote for either RFK or Manchin. The stink of the DNC will never leave them. Manchin is uniparty and RFK is nutty about global warming agenda. Both are pretty big reasons why we are where we are.

a reply to: JinMI

Sadly, I don't know how multi-line item bills work. Do they vote yay/nay on each line item or to the bill in its entirety?

Very good question, if each line item is yay/nay. If the whole bill gets voted on, then handled the way every other bill would be polled, then voted on.

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: davegazi2

I've never heard of a notional candidate, but it sounds interesting.

Me too I'm kind of laughing here.

Notional, meaning theoretical. Just meant to be a thought exercise on if a candidate like this ran, would you vote for them.

a reply to: davegazi2

Sadly, I don't know how multi-line item bills work. Do they vote yay/nay on each line item or to the bill in its entirety?

For example, a single bill may be for say, road repairs and titled as such. Yet within the bill perhaps is school funding.

So which constituency would you vote for?

originally posted by: davegazi2
With politics being so ridiculously polar these days, I feel like there is actually a large swath of constituents that have zero actual representation.

Soooo. Would you vote for this notional person, described below?

Candidate is independent. Let's say he/she (will use "he" for the remainder for simplicity) has moderate stances for the most part. For hot button issues, supports some conservative ideals and some liberal. There's enough for everyone to like some of his positions, but dislike others.

Here's his campaign platform. "I will vote the will of my constituents." Regardless of party pressure, donors, lobbyists, etc., he's found a way to poll his constituents for each measure he votes on and will vote the majority, regardless of his own beliefs.

Clearly, big assumption is he actually has a way to poll his constituents. And somehow there's a way to verify those polled are his constituents.

Another hard to swallow assumption required... he actually does what he says he going to do. And he shows it. His votes are transparent. He publicizes his vote and shows the data collected that led to his vote.

Do you vote for him on his platform to be a true representative of his district's people?

It sounds like you’re building a case for a computer aided/AI politician.

Your fictitious candidate could be restated like this:

Would you give up your individualism/rights to privacy such not only is your ID verifiably you (facial recognition/eye/dna/etc.) to authenticate you and your personal details to validate that you are not only authorized to but also distinctly identifiable in how you vote on any given issue.

As are your neighbors.

The AI computer does the will of the people - validating every vote down to the voter.

Just like your fictions, independent politician - entirely the will of the people. And solves your issue of votes being authenticated and tied to a given jurisdiction.

My answer to your OP is yes - but only if you made qualifications for who is allowed to vote. Specifically, you can only vote if you pay taxes - with exceptions for disabled individuals or those over 65 (or older as life-span increases), veterans… perhaps others, too.

Material societal problems are ensured when we tip the voting scale to those who don’t contribute. We’re nearly there in the US.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: davegazi2

Sadly, I don't know how multi-line item bills work. Do they vote yay/nay on each line item or to the bill in its entirety?

For example, a single bill may be for say, road repairs and titled as such. Yet within the bill perhaps is school funding.

So which constituency would you vote for?

Me, after having finished school some 50 years ago would vote for roads if that's how it works where I imagine those with young families would like more money for schools. Have I got that right Jin? ( I'm the other side of the world mate)

Kind regards,

Bally

a reply to: bally001

The entire point being that simply because a bill is labeled as one thing, doesn't ensure that is entirely what the bill is about.

However I'm speaking largely to omnibus bills, yet the same tactic happens everyday in legislatures at a state level as well.

a reply to: JinMI

No worries,

was just trying to wrap my head around the notion. No different in some aspects to here.

Cheers back,

Bally

a reply to: bally001

Not a problem at all.

What the OP describes, what I can only assume, is their ideal candidate.

Problem being, plugging that candidate into a system where none of those traits matter is the problem.


Respective to our own countries, imagine a candidate that checked all the boxes and was the embodiment of the entire constituency.


How would they do in our governments?

Buddy, that describes SO MANY candidates really. Many claim to be moderate but aren't, and make promises and don't deliver. At any rate, I end up not voting for Dems or Repubs anyway.
I just vote on issues, as everyone should, and that usually ends up landing me in another party.
I'm weird. I voted for Ron Paul AND Bernie Sanders, and not just because they were 3rd party.
Sanders was for taxing the rich and raising minimum wage and I wanted that, and Ron Paul was for small GVT and free speech.
I actually didn't think Obama was half bad. If it wasn't for the changes he set in motion to the health insurance system, I wouldn't be able to afford my antidepressants and would still be a severe alcoholic, dying or dead from trying to self medicate because alcohol was cheaper than my meds.

I'm registered Independent, pro free speech, anti censorship, for partial gun control,
against corporate bailouts, pro taxing the rich but want lower taxes for middle class and poor,
pro early abortions but against late term, small government, small police-force, I believe the internet is a town square not a private home,
and I'm pro trans and gay rights, but I'm anti-woke and believe in a gender binary, and I want to greatly defund the intelligence agencies
and break up black budget programs.

My take is that candidates shouldn't even be allowed to say what party they're affiliated with,
and DNC and RNC both need to be broken up and barred from funding campaigns, as should corporations (controversial, I know!).
"Endorsing" candidates should also be seen as meaningless, because I think politicians should be expected to
be more than a product line, and people need to vote on ISSUES instead of a tie color.
Physically campaigning shouldn't be necessary in this day and age, because if social media was truly free
a candidate could just make videos or posts to campaign, and there'd end up being a hundred candidates to choose from.

HERE'S a CRAZY IDEA:
Make it law that any new bill has to be less than 5 pages long,
get rid of most politicians, and let people use the internet to read and vote on bills themselves.
And get rid of the electoral college system.
Direct voting.

And holy F# I hate how the USA keeps swinging back and forth between 2 parties.
Maybe we agree on that. If I vote this cycle it'll be Kennedy because the warmongering and mass surveillance has to stop,
and we need to make it safe for Snowden to come home, and for more whistleblowers to come forward and say MORE.
Then we can find out more about aliens too!
Cheers.

Not well, IMO. I think the nation is too attached to their teams and hardline stances, that any attempt at compromise is now viewed as betrayal or "playing for the other team", and for any candidate to be truly centrist, there'd have to be a lot of compromises.

a reply to: JinMI

a reply to: davegazi2

Sure. Which party? See? Impossible. No one would agree...