Can elected officials represent “the people?”
Today is primary election day in many States. Some people who are practically broke or in debt are running for office, Are they they only running for power and their need to dominate, that is, for “position” or running for money as well, so that they will have salaries and some of the perks.
I believe that elected officials should not receive pensions. At the national level, members of Congress especially were not expected to serve on a permanent basis.
Yet people of money may merely serve to obtain “position.” Do they return their Socical Security checks on retirement?
The question remains, how do we get officials to serve the people that they represent on questions at the level of government that they were elected to?
However, even at the local level as in Shorewood, officials who do not receive pensions and who are hardly paid are anxious to hold office. Is it for position or merely for power? They cannot represent all of the people as a whole, as all of the people are not agreed on all questions and as to what each of them expects from local government and from their representatives.
So is it for “position” that they run? Some seem to do it to advertise themselves, especially as professionals.
What about the others, for power, for dominance or social position? Some will say that they do it merely as volunteers to serve and represent the people. I don't know how all 7 on Shorewood's Board are aware of what I want. They don't seem to respond readily. Are they aware of what others want as they usually vote in consensus.
How about on the question of sewer separation? How does each respond on that issue? In silence. 'Waiting for consensus to form? I'd like to know how that formation takes place?