>>>>The power of "representatives" always overwhelms the power of voters.
>>>
>>>A bold statement...
>>>
>>>>But it they abuse the power too much it may end up like in Russia in 1917.
>>>
>>>... that you just contradicted.
>>
>>Mike I think I missed your point concerning contradiction. In Czarist Russia, there were no “representatives” and certainly no voters.
>
>Yeah, I know that. The idea though is that the rulers never have absolute power over the ruled. Its a dynamic battle.
>
>And in democracies the public at large has even more power. It just so happens that as long as most of the public is satisfied, or at least not pissed off to the point where they where wield their power, they typically don't use it.
>
>Thats the only reason why Nick's statement appears to be true.
>
>Here's another good point for Jim Nelson, who asks how the loop can be broken.
>
>Step 1: Stop being such a whiner and believe the loop can be broken.
>
>Notice when I say something like "The voters have power over those who represent them" and supposedly intelligent people argue that this is not true? Well, given that it should be no surprise that the state of affairs is currently what it is.
>
>Again, the reality of the situation has nothing to do with who has equality, but who will allow themselves to be marginalized.

Mike;

I think Jim’s comments and your comments are equally valid. A dependency is who is in power and how prosperous people are. When we are comfortable in our daily lives we tend to not be vocal or desire change. If we are not comfortable we will seek change.

In our country the minority can control the majority through the court system. The will or desires of the majority are secondary to the courts. To represent social change places your life in jeopardy. Not everyone is willing to do that and until someone does no change will be evident.

At any rate I think a good argument could be made from either side of this issue. There is both a practical and theoretical element to both positions.

We have all seen and read of what happens to men who seek political change and power. They often forget the cause they originally represented.

One example is Emil Zapata, the Mexican Revolutionary who had utopian ideals, but was only mortal. He assumed the position of President and realized he was becoming as bad or worse as the previous President. He resigned his position and was assassinated by those that feared he would return to power. That is what happens when the people love you and the system does not.

Tom