This does not bode well : New Low: 17% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed

Fewer voters than ever feel the federal government has the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 17% of Likely U.S. Voters think the federal government today has the consent of the governed.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe the government does not have that consent.
Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.

(To see survey question wording, click here.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/august_2011/questions_elections_august_1_2_2011)

The number of voters who feel the government has the consent of the governed - a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration of Independence - is down from 23% in early May and has fallen to its lowest level measured yet.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/new_low_17_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_governed

That kind of feeling is what triggers violent protest.

...for the rest of us. To borrow a phrase from the current riot zone.

They seek our consent evey election cycle...after that they don't give a flying fuck!

And just like the definition of insanity...when the next election cycle rolls around we re-elect the same asshats, hoping for a different result.

and forcing us to choose the lesser of two evils over and over and over again, does NOT result in "the consent of the governed" even temporarily. That 17% figure is frightening but not surprising. It's the stuff revolutions are made of.

We the people are irrelevant.

It's beyond awful that we don't have representation anymore, but it's good that people are noticing.

It's been obvious for a long time that we are not governed by consent. This will only change as a result of everybody recognizing the truth.

The financial elite in this country produces nothing, it lives off of financial schemes. It lacks creativity or the ability to
even understand creativity in business and government. It is crony capitalism moving toward total kleptocracy.

They have to go, all of them.

We need another Teddy Roosevelt to stop the robber barons!

We need another Harry Truman to speak the truth!

We need another John Kennedy to inspire us!

And we need an ebola virus breakout in the Supreme Court!

Congress critters don't care what "we" think because they don't have to.

It's impossible to spin it any other way. No government survives for long after it loses legitimacy--how long did it take for the Soviet Union to fall? That's what I'm starting to see on the horizon and rapidly approaching. Scary stuff.

We need to chase the greedy corporate bastards out of our state legislatures, first.

We may still be far, but that's a bad an yet encouraging number.

The theater is being disassembled, and people are noticing.

Thanks for the thread, dixiegrrrrl.

as the implications of it swirled around my brain.

The only thing worse would be if the implications never developed.

That poll needs to go viral, for sure.

without our consent (non-responsive)? Or that government does not LEGITIMATELY have the consent of the governed (as in, who do we think WE are, expecting the government to listen to us)?

Further, only eight percent of Americans believe that their Congressman (or woman) listens to the voters as opposed to "party leaders."

And only six percent rate Congress' job performance as "good" or "excellent."

away from the riots we saw in London. When All the cuts Obama has helped the GOP impose start to take effect and the economy slumps completely into depression, there will be blood. (Not from me, I'm a pacifist).

The most likely trigger is if the Tea Party get their asses handed to them in the next election. These people have a tenuous grasp on reality at best, are heavily armed, and being super-heated by violent rhetoric.

Things like this are just the sort of thing to trigger a riot:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/19708/hate-crime-killing-on-video-ms-white-teens-beat-black-man-then-drive-over-him-in-pickup-truck

And instead of the above,
we get THIS?
Eat Your Peas



DUH!

Seems to be the only things the Executive and Legislative care about.

all that needs to be done is dilute the power of individual legislators and Constitution does have a provision for this.

You could interpret Article I, section 2 (The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative) as requiring far more legislators than we have now.

Currently, there is 1 legislator for every 560,000 people. This concentrates the power in such a small group that money spent per legislator for influence is, at worst, a bargain.

If we increase the number of legislators to approach the above Constitutional interpretation (1 legislator for every 30,000 is an unwieldy number - 10,000 legislators but let's say 1 per 100,000) you dilute the power of each individual legislator and exponentially increase the costs by anyone or anything to exert undue influence on the legislature. The costs increase so much so that it is no longer a bargain but a burdensome cost.

this would, unfortunately, only address the House, to alter the Senate in a similar way would require a Constitutional amendment and that is highly unlikely to occur.

Interesting point you have there.

With this super Congress we seem to have put the power of decisions in the hands of LESS people, not more.