"You voted for me to represent you! Now I will not do that!" would, in any reasonable system, be grounds for dismissal. And is, in many countries. Come on New York, you can change this.
(As the edit to the article indicates, the bill isn't subject to a pocket veto, either.)
That's what representation means. It isn't intended to end when ballots are counted.
People can contact their representatives. Each representative has a paid staff to accommodate the scale of that communication.
If you can show that the average consistuent in a district has a shared opinion, and that opinion is being overruled by their representative, then you have illustrated the failure of representation.
If you can show a pattern where the opinions of a minority group are being chosen over an opinionated majority, then you have illustrated the corruption of that representative.
On right-to-repair, from their constituiencies? Likely nothing. I'm an avid consumer of news, including local, and there's been very little coverage of it.
> If you can show that the average consistuent in a district has a shared opinion, and that opinion is being overruled by their representative, then you have illustrated the failure of representation.
Nah. Politics is complicated and full of compromise; sometimes you give in on one battle to win another.
> If you can show a pattern where the opinions of a minority group are being chosen over an opinionated majority, then you have illustrated the corruption of that representative.
Or a pattern of upholding minority rights, a core component of our Constitution.
It's not. The kind of behaviour being discussed is corruption. It wouldn't be dismissing representatives for a vote on any one issue; it would be dismissing representatives for corruption. But the electorate prefers to re-elect corrupt politicians as long as the corruption is in their favor, so the behaviour continues.
There's no allegation that the Governor has been bribed, the bill becomes law soon even if she doesn't sign it, and it's only been on her desk for two business days.
That's not what we're discussing. Up-thread, I responded to:
"...paid-off politicians who act on behalf of a few oligarchs to block popular policy changes".
That behavior, if it is happening, is what I'm claiming is corruption, even that kind of behaviour is the norm nowadays, and voters don't vote this kind of corruption out, or even call it out as corruption.
> There's no allegation that the Governor has been bribed...
Correct. The allegation is as I quoted above. It is not my allegation; I'm merely discussing appropriate voting behaviour if it were true.
Not according to the article:
"A spokesperson for the governor's office told VICE's Motherboard on October 31 that "Governor Hochul is reviewing the legislation." Asked about the bill's status today by Ars Technica, a spokesperson responded that "Governor Hochul is reviewing the legislation."
> The bill was delivered to the governor Friday, according to the New York Senate's bill tracker, though she has been considering it since late June.
Uh, no. That’s an absurd assertion. The Governor is another branch, that exists as a check and balance on the legislature. That’s why they have the veto power.
The gov was just as voted-in as the rest of them, too. The will of the voters in both branches.
Good.
There tend to be downsides of political systems that don't have elected representatives.
Of course, propaganda is still a powerful enemy, but at least people have a chance to win against rich lobbies.
But we're not. We don't vote for politicians to represent people faithfully, we vote for politicians to represent our interests in a much more abstract sense.
It has been well noted that this reduces to advertising budget, which lays bare the farce that is democracy. If it weren't a direct mapping from money to power, we wouldn't need campaign finance laws.
You can't change this because this is the way the system was designed to work. It is a system for legitimizing the authority of those with money and power using the branding of "the will of the people".
Funny how the people's will always lines up with the interests of the largest corporations, employers, and landowners, despite their being a tiny minority of "the people".
But here's the fun part: it doesn't matter who voted for the governor: once voted, the represent everyone in the state of New York, irrespective of who they voted for. When the house votes, almost unanimously to pass a bill, the governor's job is to sign it, not to stare at the wall picking their nose while checking their bank account on their phone every few minutes.
Which is why the pocket veto exists. If the governor doesn't sign it or veto it, it becomes law. 10 days is not a long time in the grand scheme of things, considering it took the legislature from Feb 2nd to Dec 16th to deliver it to the Governor - 317 days. If 10 days is that important, then we should be more concerned about the 317 days.
You may want her to eagerly sign it - fine, vote against her in her primaries or the general election if it's that important to you. But her replacement will probably will also do something you don't like at some point. No one is ever 100% perfectly represented, especially by a governor or president.
If the legislators shirk their duties, it is to the extent that they are avoiding unpopularity by redelegating back to me, and I always vote no on referenda unless there is a huge factor of conscience. Which happens apparently once a decade or so.