Who thinks writing your representative Government  at any level is effective & considered with proper response
822241
I've done this. Postal mail gets no response. E-mail gets a standard form answer. Phone calls get a staffer and the run-a-round. If you're persistent and aggressive (in an energetic, positive way) you will finally get a hold of the right people. However, that doesn't mean that they'll agree with your ideas or help you out in any way. \n\nI do volunteer work with my local public schools. I'm always pushing for better funding, new programs, better opportunities for students, etc. You kind of have to get in their face to be heard and actually considered. You have to be willing to hear "No." far more often than "Yes." I imagine it's the same with any issue you may take to a representative.
221989
It is a citizens duty to point out that our government is not being run properly, government of the people, by the people, for the people. To do other then to question is unpatriotic. Anything else is censorship and is not to be tolerated in a free society.
973550
Your premise is flawed. Criticism & dissent (not hate, silly) are essential to keeping a democracy honest.
866011
What you want is what everyone in the U.S. wants.  I'm a democrat who works her butt off and feel that people on welfare for generations is just absolutely robbery.  I care about peoples rights in the U.S. because that is why the U.S. was started so they could practice freedom of religion without fear of persecution.  I want a government that makes decisions based on the good of everyone not just the good for their pockets.  The reason we label ourselves with a party is because we feel that one party or the other will attain those items more successfully than the other.  I think most people are right down the middle the problem with our government is there is no down the middle views everythings is either too far right or too far left leaving no compromising and finding solutions thta 1/2 of the country will not be happy with.  So you are on the U.S. Team that wants a more successful, honest, rational government.  As do I.  If i'm wrong then i'm sorry i couldn't answer your question.
429582
I must answer this from the perspective of an actual government, not just the hypothetical one, so things may vary somewhat (functions and powers may be differently distributed).  But I believe the basic approach is sound for those operating under a representative system of government other than the U.S. Constitution.\n\nSeveral want to suggest all three of these 'branches' are "equally important". \n\nI may agree with what I THINK they mean, but I also think they misunderstand the question, and perhaps the American system of government.\n\nI would agre that all three functions ARE important (even necessary) to a properly functioning state.\n\nI would also agree that there should be a  healthy 'balance' in which each has its own sphere (not trampling on the others) and even has the ability to act as a check on the others (what Americans call 'checks and balances').\n\nBut that is not the same thing as saying all three have "equal" powers or importance.   \n\nKeeping all that in view, I believe the LEGISLATIVE (or what you call the "parlimentarian") is the most important.  It is  THE branch most directly respresntative of and accountable to the people.  It is also THE source of laws, and what is more central to governing that the system of LAWS?\n\nYes, the other branches have important functions in seeing that laws are effectively and fairly carried out, and may even have some authority to prevent (by exective veto) or rescind (by judicial decision) at least some laws, within limits (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court can declare that a law is void because it violates the Constitution, which takes precedence as THE foundational law).  But neither of these branches can MAKE the laws (at least they are not SUPPOSED to!!)   In particular, the courts --as important as their role is in assuring that our laws are upheld-- COULD not be 'the most important in the POLITICAL systm' when (as in the U.S. design) the judges do not stand for election and so are to some extent OUTSIDE "politics".\n\nA bit of support for this understanding may be found in the 2nd definition of "political" in Webster's--\n  "of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" --   From this perspective, clearly the legislative branch, and secondarily the executive, have the primacy.\n\nThe much greater detail of Article II of U.S. Constitution --that concerning the legislature -- is one evidence of the importance the founding fathers placed on this branch.  (Their writings back this up.)
583349
I thought the letter was pretty reasonable and rational.\n\nAnyone who sees something else in it has to be a warmonger blind to any forms of olive branches.\n\nIt didn't sound like the work of a man looking to start a huge war. It sounded like it could've been written by any ordinary, law-abiding citizen with a gripe against something or someone. It sounds like it came from your average citizen from a town hall meeting.
946787
Governments are formed by people in order to accomplish common goals which would be unattainable by individuals or businesses.  In our tiered system each tier is best suited to accomplish certain goals.  \n\nGovernments should only take it upon themselves to provide services that 1) the community wants/needs and 2) cannot be accomplished be individuals or businesses.  \n\nOnce a "common goal" meets the above criteria then it should be assigned to the appropriate tier (Federal, State, County or City) of government which is best suited to accomplish that goal.  Not every problem requires an act of Congress.  For example, some communities have passed ordinances against parking cars in the front lawn of a home; it is not necessary for congress to pass legislation forcing the entire country to abide by this.  In the inverse the Federal Government is obviously best suited to provide National Security; if it were left up to the states we would have to deal with the chaos of 50 separate armies.
305384
WOW! That is interesting. Nice to know we have such "well behaved" people helping to run our country!!! That is why I hate politics!
481784
It's alright for a government I suppose, I can think of worse ones. There's never going to be a great government with people + the world the way it is so I just accept the one we have.
123387
WRITE AND CALL YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE..
799483
Yes. This situation is logical. All government officers, however highly ranked, are there to serve the public and have to report into public representatives, who are nothing but elected political leaders. This is how democracy works. At times, it may not be a very efficient way of managing our affairs but democracy ensures that someone who actually represents the people is actually in charge. I can understand your cynicism. Somebody once said, in a democracy you deserve the government you get!
1113973
I answered your question. I'm being a good citizen.
871543
Your question seems to assume that candidates for all political offices should represent the constituents.  For sake of argument I will assume that you understand that mayors, governors and the president are leaders, not representatives.  Likewise, let's agree that we are discussing members of Congress, that bicameral beast in our capital.\n\nIf you look at the Constitution, you will find that Senators were originally elected by state legislatures to represent at the federal level the interests of the states, not the members of voting districts.  That leaves the House of Representatives.  Your representative should represent his constituents according to their wishes, not his own.  If you can find one who actually does that, by all means, please let me know.\n\nSo what to do with the ones who don't represent the people they're elected to represent?  Our system requires voters to keep all elected officials by staying involved and thinking critically.  Most of us are victims of government education and thus less prepared for critical thinking than some.  We would rather go home from work and have dinner in front of Entertainment Tonight than to have family disussions about work, the news of the day and so forth.  Instead of knowing what our elected officials are doing, we wonder who our entertainers are doing.\n\nThe bottom line is that we must act as individuals and within groups of concerned citizens to communicate with representatives so that they know our concerns.  If they don't act accordingly, vote the SOBs out.  It's just that simple.
901458
Local Legislatures Doing The Job \nThat The Federal Government Refuses To Do\n\nThis WILL Be The Spark That Lights The Fire\n\nI Think The Government At Local Levels \nSHOULD Be Given The Authority To Govern Their Jurisdictions\nWITHOUT Interference From The Federal Government\nIf They Don't Already Have It\n\nIt Is The VOTERS That Put These Representatives Into Office\nFor The Specific Reason \nOf REPRESENTING Their Voices In The Lawmaking Decisions\nOf Their Cities, Counties And States\n\nFor The Federal Government To DENY \nOr UNDERMINE The Ability \nOf The Cities, Counties And States \nTo Govern Their Jurisdictions\nIs Paramount To Saying That The Voices Of The People (Voters)\nWill Be IGNORED\n\nThis Is Unacceptable\n\n\n\n\n\n\nImposter\n\nPancha Go Home, Hobag
1111858
Government should be free from bias, bigotry, religion, fair and honest.  In the last few years I had had the opportunity to meet many candidates, congressmen, senators, former Presidents, Governors and many local politicians.  The number that are truly honest are few.
662761
=====================\nThere's a quote by Winston Churchill that says something like: "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others."\n\nRepresentative government means that people elect people to represent them in government.  \n\nIts advantage is that everyone is involved in government activities.  Everyone works and fights for the same cause.  Representative governments supposedly give everybody a chance to succeed and have their problems in the world resolved.  Supposedly, there are checks and balances so that no one group takes power and uses it against others.  That's why we have 3 branches - executive, legislative and judicial.  You have different people making laws, different people enforcing the laws, and different people judging whether or not the laws and their enforcement fit the Constitution.\n\nNow please do your own homework, silly!  Make it up if you have to.
74237
Always has, always will.  We must all learn to operate with a more sophisticated understanding of the American use of the term "democracy" in the first instance.  It doesn't mean (and has never meant) that everyone has an equal say in how things get done.  If that were true, we would all have equal access to our elected representatives.  We do not.  Look at the impact of lobbyists, special interests groups, political action committees, and cronyism on our governmental processes.  It's naive to think that we all have a say.  Still, it is important, as individuals, to remain involved in the process and to let our public officials know how THEY can best serve OUR needs.  When enough of us speak in concert, those who listen stay in office; those who don't don't.