Who would you vote for?

[Mytical]

Not sure it matters to be honest. All of them pretty much seem incompetent and corrupt. Nobody even attempts to keep campaign promises any more. *shrugs*

[Sage Blackthorn]

Not sure it matters to be honest. All of them pretty much seem incompetent and corrupt. Nobody even attempts to keep campaign promises any more. *shrugs*

Precisely, why should they keep their campagin promises when it's exceedingly difficult to fire them when it becomes obvious they've lied to the public to get into office or that they can't do the job they represented themselves as being able to do.

In my town, for example, the city spent thousands of dollars building monuments and memorials to people that either never lived in our town, never visited our town, or who lived here for 3 months about 150 years ago that no one's ever heard off. Or to redecorate (I will not call it a renovation because the area wasn't run down or dilapidated) a section of downtown to make it look pretty. The construction company was owned by a friend of the mayor, the money spent from the city coffers could've gone for other more necessary projects such as repairing the roads. But instead we got statues. Our local city council "promised" to get the roads repaired, deal with the rise in crime downtown, and a number of other issues. As soon as he got elected, he promptly forgot all the things he said he was going to fix.

The problem is our system of government relies on people to be better than they ever have been: more truthful, more honorable, more compassionate, more self-sacrificing....than people have ever been in all of history. Basicly, it's Garbage In, Garbage Out. It attracts people who are very good at getting elected, but not very good at doing the job they were elected for.

[Bronzebow]

But in a lot of instances, they're not. And it's not just math or science. Look on CS.com at the professors there as they talk about some of the dumb things their students do. I know some people that struggled with Freshman Composition. After four years of English in high school, I expect people to know how to write essays. Yes, once you get into a field you learn different formats, but that's to be expected.

There is a dearth in these fields. It's statistically proven that the United States has fallen behind in the general knowledge of science and mathematics.

You're missing the point. Arguing that this one example is possibly true, maybe true, true somewhere, true somehow, or even definitely true does not in any way diminish what I'm trying to say. I'm giving hypothetical situations where a politician uses sound bytes to tell a lie while sounding good. Have you really never seen that happen? Your reaction is the exact thing I'm talking about here.

Only by taking your example as true at its face value, and taking that it's true for this politician's district, and taking that it's true that it's K-12 that has the problem here and not higher education, and taking that it's true that this one politician's solution is actually a good one, and taking that it's true that there isn't a downside to said solution, and taking it that it's true that there's no financial hullabaloo between this politician and some science book sellers or something...

...THEN that politician is not lying through his teeth. If any one of those fail, then it's nothing more than another good sounding sound byte meant to make people react like you have here.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's always struck me as somewhat humorous how people who stand against disparaging generalizations when applied to ethnic groups and occupations are so ready to paint all politicians black.

You say 'popularity contest' as if this is both A) a surprise and B) a bad thing. No shit it's a popularity contest. The whole fucking point of elected officials is to represent the people electing them. It's only to be expected that someone with a different ideology and different priorities will lose, because within the scope of the community at hand, that is the person who should lose.

The purpose of a politician is NOT to always be right, this is far too often a matter of opinion for it to even be possible.

When it comes to budgeting and so-forth, it's also a bit sticky. Often, the money it would take to increase the size of any government employment is more than just hiring new people and vehicles, it's also incentivizing current and potential workers, the costs of which can stack up much higher than you're slush fund could ever pay for. Meanwhile there's a whole crowd of people with a stick up their asses about some ultimately trivial thing like statues or whatever that DOES fit in the budget because you pay once and then you're done. So you part with the coin for a dozen computers or a dozen statues of Randolph Scott and there's at least that many people who've gotten what they wanted.

Meanwhile, everyone simultaneously wants what they think is important to be funded more and what they don't think is important to be funded less because god forbid anyone raise taxes to pay for it. So someone has to choose and it's right that they do, just please don't be surprised or feel horribly wronged when they choose the things that will placate more people. If more people want statues than computers, it's a politicians job to decide: statues.

The only sector of government where this doesn't apply is the courts where it's either the letter or rarely the spirit of the law that matters and not what people think about it. Which is a whole other nest of thorns.

[AdminAssistant]

Wingates is right, especially in regards to city government. The college students in my town have been petitioning for a number of things - more street lights, better sidewalks, better roads. But their requests go virtually unheard because: 1) most college student don't pay property taxes, 2) most college students rotate out every 4-6 years, and 3) the 18-25 year old bracket is a very unstable voter base. The city government wants to please the homeowners in the city, who claim that streetlights cause light pollution, don't live in the neighborhoods with the worst roads/sidewalks, and don't want ANY of their money to go to improve the student neighborhoods.

[Sage Blackthorn]

It's always struck me as somewhat humorous how people who stand against disparaging generalizations when applied to ethnic groups and occupations are so ready to paint all politicians black.

I'm glad I can be of some amusement for you.

You say 'popularity contest' as if this is both A) a surprise and B) a bad thing. No shit it's a popularity contest. The whole fucking point of elected officials is to represent the people electing them.

Uh no, the whole point of elected officials is to do the job for which they were elected. In this case the job of City Mayor or City Manager, who's job is to administer the city budget.

When it comes to budgeting and so-forth, it's also a bit sticky. Often, the money it would take to increase the size of any government employment is more than just hiring new people and vehicles, it's also incentivizing current and potential workers, the costs of which can stack up much higher than you're slush fund could ever pay for. Meanwhile there's a whole crowd of people with a stick up their asses about some ultimately trivial thing like statues or whatever that DOES fit in the budget because you pay once and then you're done. So you part with the coin for a dozen computers or a dozen statues of Randolph Scott and there's at least that many people who've gotten what they wanted.

The only problem with your little hypothesis here is that the issue of the memorial statues wasn't put to a vote, polls showed that the majority of the city residents were in favor road repairs over the statues. At city council meetings the time allotted for citizens to speak is consistently been decreasing over the current Mayors term of office, some citizens are routinely told that an issue on the agenda will not be discussed when they show up to council meetings to make a statement.

Since you don't live in my town, I'll cut you a little slack for being unaware of the local political situation or the history and just take a wild guess that things are different where you live.

[Vash113]

Uh no, the whole point of elected officials is to do the job for which they were elected. In this case the job of City Mayor or City Manager, who's job is to administer the city budget.

Except they are elected officials! They may be elected to do a job, but ultimately the point of the system is to elect a representative of the people. Which is another way to say a popularity contest, who represents the constituents better or is better liked by them.

"For the people, by the people" and all that jazz. If it was just "who can do the job better" your argument would hold water, but that's not the case.

The only problem with your little hypothesis here is that the issue of the memorial statues wasn't put to a vote, polls showed that the majority of the city residents were in favor road repairs over the statues. At city council meetings the time allotted for citizens to speak is consistently been decreasing over the current Mayors term of office, some citizens are routinely told that an issue on the agenda will not be discussed when they show up to council meetings to make a statement.

Except your missing the point of the system. Elected officials are elected to make decisions without having to have every single person vote on every single thing. After all we don't live in an autonomous collective, or an anarcho-syndicalist commune. If you want, move to a commune where you can act as an executive officer for the week, where all your decisions have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of internal affairs, but by a 2/3rd's majority in the case of external affairs. But of course, that kind of shenanigans takes for ever, which is why we have a Republic rather than a true Democracy.

Now as for the statues and road repairs stuff. Well simply put, do you know all the reasons why the statues were chosen? Ultimately the number of factors involved can be bewildering in their variety and complexity. After all, many areas in the country are suffering terrible road maintenance issues, the simple reason being roads are difficult to repair and expensive to boot. Simple fixes are a delaying tactic at best, after a few decades a road will need to be completely torn out and replaced down to and including its very foundations. This is a time intensive process that also means shutting down or narrowing road networks. Now if you want to try and tackle the problem of balancing traffic issues and over-flooding of neighboring road networks while a particular area is under construction and strategise all of this with a limited labor pool of specialized workers, contractors and very expensive equipment, all while managing a local budget without raising taxes drastically to pay for all of this or massively cut other areas of the budget then be my guest.

Politicians are not miracle workers or super-heroes. They have to work with the tools that they have. If there simply aren't the people, materials or equipment to increase or speed up road repairs and replacements than it just can't be done. To do so would require funneling in significant resources that just aren't to be had.

Now I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but it must be taken into consideration. Roads are a tricky business, where I live, we have had unbelievable problems with the road systems. They're old and falling apart, in dire need of replacement and as the surrounding areas have built up and commercialized the local traffic has expanded hugely in the last few decades. All of this means the local cities have a huge burden to fix the road networks with very limited funds. They are doing an excellent job but it still takes time and inconveniences everyone.

Not to mention the statues may well have been a far more reasonable or beneficial choice at the time. After all many cities are desperate to improve their decor to attract visitors and tourism and also improve the look and value of the areas. Something that homeowners associations are constantly demanding. It also may be that there were funds allocated for aesthetic improvements like statues that could not be spent elsewhere. Fund allocations are often mandated by state or federal agencies, heck even grants often come with requirements for how or where the money is to be spent.

Budgets also tend to include funding that must be used by the end of the fiscal year. If a city does not spend all of its allocated state or federal funding then it may lose some of that funding the next year. So what is often the case is a city, county or sometimes even states will find something... anything, to spend the remainder of their funding on before the fiscal year turns over so that they can guarantee they will receive at least the same amount the next year. If road improvements won't fit into that spending, maybe statues did.

Budgets neither make sense, nor are they simple.

Maybe vocal constituent parties were putting the pressure on for their own reasons, or perhaps a vocal minority swung the decision against the generally held opinions of the majority.

Ultimately, I don't know, but to sum this up the reality is politics are far from simple. Especially when you throw budgets into the mix, various groups, agencies and affiliations will all have demands on where funding will go, not to mention available resources, time constraints, the proximity of the next elections, and many other things besides, will all have an impact on decisions in the end that local citizens may have absolutely no idea about.

In the end, the only thing for it is to elect someone else next time. That's how the system works after all. You could also join a lobbying group if you really feel like it, or run for office yourself. Bar those things, just enjoy the statues and be patient.

Since you don't live in my town, I'll cut you a little slack for being unaware of the local political situation or the history and just take a wild guess that things are different where you live.

You cut slack? If readers are getting it wrong then explain the situation better.

[Mytical]

Politicians should also not just make the easy decisions either. Take the road vs statues in example. The argument seems to be that roads are more difficult, and that the statues improved the landscape and could draw more visitors. Except that is just ignoring the problem. The roads need to be fixed regardless, and if you have poor roads are the statues REALLY going to help that much?

Sure, it would be more difficult and more expensive to fix the roads..but isn't that what they got the job for? To make the difficult decisions? Not to mention that repairing the infrastructure will have other benefits. Like less wear and tear on vehicles, making the city look better (then cracked roads with holes in them), and even in some cases helping with traffic congestion which will cut down on pollution, which will cut down on damage to buildings and keeping the city looking better in general.

So just because the roads are a difficult task, and thus a difficult decision, means nothing. If you can not make the difficult decisions, then you shouldn't be in office. Even the unpopular decisions if they NEED to be made should be made.

Yes, it is not easy. Everybody wants something, and you have to deal to get what you want. If you can't handle it, do not run. Simple. If you make a promise, keep it, or do not make the promise. Explain WHY when you are running for office. Don't hide behind double speak. But as Sage said..it is a popularity contest..and honesty doesn't win popularity contests.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Ok, lets see if I can make a couple points here:

ultimately the point of the system is to elect a representative of the people. Which is another way to say a popularity contest, who represents the constituents better or is better liked by them.

Elected officials are elected to make decisions without having to have every single person vote on every single thing.

Let's examine this premise that our leaders are elected to represent the constituents but don't have to take the views of those constituents into account when making decisions. Apparently once a representative is in office, they can do whatever they wish until their term of office is up.

Standard Defintions (since there seems to be some confusion on this point):

Elected: –adjective
1. chosen by vote, as for an office ( contrasted with appointed): an elected official.

Representative: –noun
a person who represents a constituency or community in a legislative body, esp. a member of the U.S. House of Representatives or a lower house in certain state legislatures.

And to Represent, what a Representative is defined as doing: –verb (used with object)
5. to act for or in behalf of (a constituency, state, etc.) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government: He represents Chicago's third Congressional district.

So an elected representative is someone whom a constituency (the voters or residents in a district represented by an elective officer) votes to act for or in behalf of in a legislative body.

Sound to me like an elected representative is suppose to do what their constituency wants them to, to "act for or in behalf of". How can they do this without knowing what their constituency wants. Oh yes that's right, through votes, through polls, through listening to there comments in council and taking notes and then taking into consideration what their contituency wants, using their best judgement to attain that end. What would we call an elected official who does not represent the will of their constituency? Generally, around here (home) we refer to them as "An idiot who doesn't want to get re-elected because they ignore the people and do just as they please."

How can you have a representative government "Of the people, for the people, and by the people" when it's representatives are failing to represent the will of ALL the people?

Budgets neither make sense, nor are they simple.

And excellant point, thank you for pointing out yet another problem with the system.

As Mytical pointed out, when we elect a representative who tells us they support our views on the issues, we expect them to do what's right as we see it, not merely what's easy. That's why they were elected, to "represent" us, not to lie to us to get elected. In choosing to run for office, to represent their people in government, a certain level of honesty is implied here.

Are you saying that a person can run for public office, promise the voters to address and remedy certain specific issues, to represent them, and then reneg on those promisses once they are elected, not having any obligation to even explain why it's unfeasable or simply not possible at the current time? That a representative does not have to listen to those they represent? And this isn't a major problem? That we can't do better? That's there's no room for improvement?

The "system" most certainly does not work "for the people". It relies on people to be smarter, wiser, more truthful, compassionate, and honorable than people have ever been in all of history in order to work. And when our leaders lie to us to get into office and turn out to be corrupt, greedy, and unscrupulous, and the constituents express anger at the betrayal of their trust the general response is "Well, just elect someone better nest time." I was always told that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time. By that definition, the current political system is most assuredly insane.

[Mytical]

Also, a lot of the time it goes beyond even that. To outright corruption. Their cousin, brother, uncle, or other people they might feel indebted to get sent work when they are not the best choice (or even the cheapest). They accept funds to vote or do something, or otherwise take bribes. All because they can play the 'its politics' card. Bull. They look out for themselves, and their 'friends', and heck with the people.

Not that I can say I blame them. There is a LOT of kickbacks and money to be made.

Our government has stopped being 'for the people' a long time ago. They are 'for the corporations and rich'. Because money talks.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Let's do this in order of posts each person in turn. First, Mytical's first post:

The difficult decision here is between the two options as both are going to placate some and draw ire from others. All the things that make improving the roads difficult are also things that add up against it's feasibility. Sometimes this adds up to: It's not feasible. It makes sense on the face of it that roads are a more practical thing to put money in, but this does not equate to 'better.' If something requires more money than you have or can get to serve the long term and the affordable option only serves the short term, whilst you have another area where you can spend that same money and reap those benefits long term, the second option makes more sense.

Next Blackthorn's post:

To act on behalf of someone does not mean do everything as they say or do only what they would like you to do. It means primarily to make choices and put in effort towards what you believe to be in their best interests. This relies heavily on the perspective of the person in question, which is why that person must be alike to those they represent. Furthermore, this also relies on the unique perspective of the person once they have the job and while a representative should listen to what their constituents have to say, their constituents are no more omnipotent than any other entity. To be a politician is to take what you think and what your people think and what the experts think, weigh it and decide, often with the knowledge that no option is perfect or even all that much better than the others.

So you propose that you not only know that every politician that has ever or ever will run for office tells the populace that they will 100% of the time do everything super-perfect and that everyone will be happy and joyous whilst secretly intending to do the opposite just for kicks and giggles? That you are privy to the fact that, when something doesn't go through as planned, it is the fault of the politician in all things?

Your pessimism is staggering here. You ignore every example there has been in the history of humanity of honesty, honorable conduct and good intentions, to say nothing of the middle ground who seek only to do their best or not exacerbate and paint them one and all as mischievous devils? This is quite simply FALSE because any such absolute MUST be false.

Mytical again:
I mean this in the best possible way: prove it. Sure, there are those in the system who exploit it, there is no system where this does not happen even when that system is NO system. But ALL of them? You hear that the occasional politician did something selfish or illegal and you conclude that all of them have? Is it really necessary for me or anyone for that matter to politely remind you that the shit you hear on CNN does not in any way equate to reality?


Seriously, from the heart here, all this I've heard in the last few posts smells of the bile that the WBC and they're ilk spout about gays, or the KKK spit out about blacks. Unfounded prejudice against any arbitrary group is the opposite of what we should be working towards as people, on that I think we can all agree.

P.S. It would only be insanity to vote for the same person and expect them to do differently, since people are not the same, voting for someone else is therefore not the same as voting for the same person, ya dig?

[Vash113]

Politicians should also not just make the easy decisions either. Take the road vs statues in example. The argument seems to be that roads are more difficult, and that the statues improved the landscape and could draw more visitors. Except that is just ignoring the problem. The roads need to be fixed regardless, and if you have poor roads are the statues REALLY going to help that much?

Sure, it would be more difficult and more expensive to fix the roads..but isn't that what they got the job for? To make the difficult decisions? Not to mention that repairing the infrastructure will have other benefits. Like less wear and tear on vehicles, making the city look better (then cracked roads with holes in them), and even in some cases helping with traffic congestion which will cut down on pollution, which will cut down on damage to buildings and keeping the city looking better in general.

All of which ignores the rules of practicality. Tell me, where will this money come from to fix the roads? Where exactly? Raise taxes... oh no, we can't have that. Cut school spending, environmental protection, police? Wouldn't want to see any of that cut. So where does the money come from?

It's all well and good to pretend like politicians are just cowards taking the easy road, but in reality that is most often just BS. It's not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of pragmatism and practicality. If you don't have the funds to do something... you can't do it.

In reality a few statues cost a heck of a lot less than fixing up the roads, not to mention such a project requires a lot less in the way of horrendously expensive equipment. If there isn't the money, there aren't the machines and there aren't the people what would you have the politician do? He doesn't have a magic wand.

Heck, a single traffic-light costs around $40,000, a traffic-light. Now figure how much it costs a city to close down a road one half at a time, rip up the pavement to the gravel foundations and completely relay the darn thing? Weeks of labor from a highly specialized contractor crew, around half a dozen or more specialized construction vehicles for the proper laying of the asphalt and paint the lanes on after-wards. Not to mention any potential impact on sewage or power lines, sidewalks and so on and so forth.

The manpower and material figures can become truly staggering, especially when your considering the scale of the project, size of the road, and impact on traffic. Any delays will add significant cost, not to mention frequent complaints if it is in a commercial area and may be adversely impacting local businesses.

Compare that to the relatively simple task of putting in a basic concrete foundation and (usually) marble or granite exterior for a statue and hiring an artist to cast a sculpture in bronze. Even an ornate or intricate project is inevitably going to cost much less.

Not to mention statues and other simple aesthetic improvements require little in the way of maintenance and are for the most part a one time cost.

Simply put, would you rather have nothing be done to improve the city? Or would you rather take some statues now and let road maintenance continue apace?

Really its just a matter of perspective and practicality. What can be done now, what can be funded now, and what is practical to do now.

So just because the roads are a difficult task, and thus a difficult decision, means nothing. If you can not make the difficult decisions, then you shouldn't be in office. Even the unpopular decisions if they NEED to be made should be made.

Yes, it is not easy. Everybody wants something, and you have to deal to get what you want. If you can't handle it, do not run. Simple. If you make a promise, keep it, or do not make the promise. Explain WHY when you are running for office. Don't hide behind double speak. But as Sage said..it is a popularity contest..and honesty doesn't win popularity contests.

Well, since your such an expert on budget economics, politics and "tough decision making" why don't you run for the office and solve all the problems?

The truth is never as simple as all that, it really isn't (just go watch the West Wing, it's not a bad representation). In fact, it's almost always immensely complicated, look no further than California. Arnold may not be the best darn politician, I don't even agree with half his stances on issues, but he's done a darn good job with next to nothing all things considered. That's making tough decisions.

Now, all that said, we really don't have enough information to say anything absolute on this specific situation. How much money? Where there other possibilities involved? Where was the money coming from? Did it have any mandated uses? If it wasn't used, would it be lost? Were there any available resources to increase road maintenance without hiring new employees and buying new machines? What was the time frame involved?

All of those questions and more are important considerations before you condemn a decision as arbitrary, pointless or wasteful.

Logic and reasoning are our friends, we must ask the pertinent questions before we join the rabble rousing or we are just that... rabble.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Ya' know, I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth and actually read what I'm saying instead of just assuming thing:

Nowhere have I ever said that I think our leaders have to be super-perfect. What I've said is, and I'll quote myself here:

through votes, through polls, through listening to there comments in council and taking notes and then taking into consideration what their contituency wants, using their best judgement to attain that end.

And when something simply cannot be done? Explain to your constituents WHY it cannot be done. Talk to them.

Good leaders are not the rule that the system produces, they are the exceptions. I'm not ignoring history, I'm looking at history to draw this conclusion. And quite frankly, declaring that something is false solely because it MUST be false smacks of an almost religious belief, and just as much of an "absolute" as you accuse me of using.

We're not focusing on on some oppressed group here, these are the people in charge, the ones with the power, and shame on you for drawing comparisons with the KKK or the WBC. We're focusing on the problems with a "system" and where improvements need to be made. If a system only works well when it involves the best that society has to offer, it will fail. It needs to be refined to work well even using the worst that society has to offer.

Examples that have been brought up:

"Budgets neither makes sense, nor are they simple."

"Funds with mandates on how they must be spent."

"The budget has to used by the end of the year or the alloted money will be LESS next year."

So instead of doing the sensable thing, and SAVING anything left over from last years budget and putting it towards the following years projects. This forces the City Manager (or the school district, or the Governor) to spend the money just to get rid of it rather than using it to accomplish take care of the needs of the community. This way of doing things was based on the idea that if there extra in a budget, then the budget is sufficient to take care of a communities needs. If fails to recognize that there may be extra monies in the city coffers not because everything that needed to be paid for has been, but because the budget has fallen short of paying for necessites. Allowing the city (or the school district) to put that money aside and add it to the next years budget is a senseble thing to do. Penalizing the city by allotting it LESS when it cannot pay for what it needs to is not senseble.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

By stating that the system requires people to be better than they have ever been implies that the job cannot possibly be done properly. This says to me that you are either pessimistically convinced that all people are somehow too broken to do good OR that you have an unrealistic expectation for what a 'good job' in a political office is.

It's been proven time and again that absolute statements are always false, since you've clarified somewhat I'll address this instead: Bullshit. There are plenty of examples in history of good leaders and plenty of examples of bad leaders and almost no middle ground. History, much like the media, remembers the really really bad more than it remembers the good and it doesn't at all remember the average. This average that doesn't make things worse or make anything particularly better is also doing a good job. It's not a fantastic job, but it's a good job nonetheless.

I couldn't care less if the group in question is "oppressed." The racism of the Black Panthers wasn't any better than that of the KKK because they were the underdogs, so I stand by my analogy.

The reasons behind spending mandates and surplus adjustments are many and there's plenty of valid reasons behind them. Often a spending mandate is attached to money specifically because the next-higher rung mandated this spending and is providing money for it, but wants to provide for it's proper expenditure that much more by attaching a penalty if spent elsewhere. From the perspective of the city this may not make sense, but from the perspective of the state or fed governments it makes perfect sense. Neither perspective is really better than the other, they're just different because they have different priorities. And if this mandated spending ends up being less costly or unnecessary or if a 'free to spend' grant goes unspent by the end of the year, it makes sense on the higher rung to take it back because not only is this a sign that the short term spending it was meant for is unneeded there's also a number of other jurisdictions all of which need money for something or another. If a government needs more long-term spending it needs to increase it's long term income.

Remember that the city is fully capable of raising money for itself, but often they don't. Why? because that's what the people want them to do. People want them not to raise taxes, they want this so much that anyone who does so is bound to have serious trouble when it comes time for re-election. This is where the system works at it's finest in that it rewards politicians who do what their constituents want by putting the power to keep them in office in the hands of those constituents. It's called rule of the majority, because there cannot be rule of the entirety. People are too different to be all the same.

What the majority wants may not make sense to you, and it may not even really make sense to them. But this does not make them wrong. But there's a downside to rule of the majority and that's the possibility if not tendency for the majority to rule itself at the expense of the minority. So we also have rights of the minority as a balancing factor. Part of this is the fact that a politician is not required by law to do exactly what his constituents want because the constituents may want something that's illegal, impossible or impractical. Any of which the roads in question may have been.

Besides, the people who wanted the statues are constituents too. They have say in what goes on too even if they're in the minority. Hell, there's a decent chance that those people make up the minority in many different areas. If so, by doing what those people want from time to time would in fact be the closest possible thing to giving everyone what they want by giving everyone something that they wanted.

[Vash113]

Ya' know, I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth and actually read what I'm saying instead of just assuming thing:

Nowhere have I ever said that I think our leaders have to be super-perfect. What I've said is, and I'll quote myself here:

through votes, through polls, through listening to there comments in council and taking notes and then taking into consideration what their contituency wants, using their best judgement to attain that end.

And when something simply cannot be done? Explain to your constituents WHY it cannot be done. Talk to them.

That's a contradiction, you say we're putting words in your mouth, and yet your laying down your exacting measures for what defines a good leader, which is in short asking for perfection. A politician cannot please everyone, cannot even explain or justify everything to everyone. Politicians do often talk to their constituents, if they didn't they wouldn't hold office for long. Yet you seem to completely overlook that and expect what, I wonder, a detailed report on every decision arriving at your house by mail every month or something?

You have provided no evidence to suggest that the politician/s in question have not done everything you've just laid down in your quote above. The only difference is they don't seem to have done what you thought would be best, but that's not how government works.

You cannot expect a politician to please everyone, even trying to suggest that is asking for an unattainable perfection.

Good leaders are not the rule that the system produces, they are the exceptions. I'm not ignoring history, I'm looking at history to draw this conclusion. And quite frankly, declaring that something is false solely because it MUST be false smacks of an almost religious belief, and just as much of an "absolute" as you accuse me of using.

I'm afraid that logic is flawed. Your the one making the outrageous assumptions here. Absolutes are FALSE because there is no such thing as a true absolute, ever, never, never, ever. Which is the only thing Wingates said, and it's true.

Your also not looking at history, good leaders are not the exception, excellent, magnificent leaders are. Not everyone can be an Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt or Kennedy. Good leaders, solid leaders, even average leaders are generally the norm. We only really hear about the truly astounding or the truly despicable with little focus on anything in between. Therefore it is the height of folly to try and set the guideline for a good leader as being truly exceptional. That's really just expecting the impossible.

I've seen nothing to indicate that the politicians in question aren't doing their job just fine.

We're not focusing on on some oppressed group here, these are the people in charge, the ones with the power, and shame on you for drawing comparisons with the KKK or the WBC. We're focusing on the problems with a "system" and where improvements need to be made. If a system only works well when it involves the best that society has to offer, it will fail. It needs to be refined to work well even using the worst that society has to offer.

I fail to see the logic behind that statement. You say the system is broken and the individuals in question are those with the power... but haven't really justified either claim. Honestly a city mayor hardly has a lot of power, nor is the system inherently broken cause you didn't get what you wanted. Nothing is perfect, no governmental system will ever be perfect either, all we can do is hope our elected officials do the best they can with the resources and time available and if they don't... elect someone else and see how that goes.

As for the KKK or the WBC, there's no shame in that statement what so ever. It's entirely true. Your sitting here making generalized and absolutist statements about politicians with exactly the same kind of exaggeration and negativism that those groups use against blacks and gays respectively. It was said once, and I'll repeat it; unfounded bias is always unacceptable no matter its source or subject. I don't care if its directed at the color of sprinkles on a donut, cut it out.

Examples that have been brought up:

"Budgets neither makes sense, nor are they simple."

"Funds with mandates on how they must be spent."

"The budget has to used by the end of the year or the alloted money will be LESS next year."

So instead of doing the sensable thing, and SAVING anything left over from last years budget and putting it towards the following years projects. This forces the City Manager (or the school district, or the Governor) to spend the money just to get rid of it rather than using it to accomplish take care of the needs of the community. This way of doing things was based on the idea that if there extra in a budget, then the budget is sufficient to take care of a communities needs. If fails to recognize that there may be extra monies in the city coffers not because everything that needed to be paid for has been, but because the budget has fallen short of paying for necessites. Allowing the city (or the school district) to put that money aside and add it to the next years budget is a senseble thing to do. Penalizing the city by allotting it LESS when it cannot pay for what it needs to is not senseble.

On the contrary, the alternative is the local governments have greater control over budget spending and can put it towards purposes it wasn't intended for, use it frivolously or mismanage it. Mandates are there for a reason, they aren't perfect, but they serve a necessary managerial purpose. The funds are being provided for a reason, and they have stipulations on how and where they are to be spent and if they aren't the state and/or federal government will give the money to somebody else who direly needs it. That's how the system works. It does have failings and it does leave some areas hurting for funding because of it but it also makes sure that most of the money goes where it's supposed to go.

In short, it's a way to prevent money from just being thrown around. Cities, Counties and States aren't helpless, they can raise their own funds to supplement federal grants. This is usually an unpopular option as raising taxes or fees is almost always going to be opposed by the short sighted and narrow minded. One of the common solutions is to make as much money on traffic tickets as the local government can, a common scourge of vacationers.

However, if you look from the perspective of the federal or state government, the last thing you want to do is give someone money without asking what they're going to spend it on and making sure they do just that and not something else.

Rather than bellyache over the problems in the system (and there are many) it is always more constructive to be pro-active. Call your local representative and talk about the possibility of a fund raiser to help improve the road networks, or the possibility of appealing for a federal grant. There are also many positions on various committees and boards, as well as lower rung politics that you can easily get involved in on the city or county level where you can make a difference.

There are options and solutions to these problems, none of which involve decrying the nature of politicians or the system in general. Or as the saying goes; "If you aren't part of the solution, your part of the problem."

P.S.

"Sometimes the way you THINK it is, isn't how it REALLY is at all." --St. Orin--

Good advice, I think you should listen to it.