The United State's government is no longer representative of the American people.

1. I concede I made a mistake about Congress holding a vote, which in fact it did. However, it voted for the "authorization of use of military force against Iraq," as opposed to a "declaration of war." [1] A "declaration of war," I argue, would be a completely unambiguous statement expressing the intention to engage the state in question in a military conflict. This "authorization for use of military force" was not such a decision or declaration by Congress themselves, but a transfer of that decision making power to the President alone. [2] Which, I argue, is a roundabout way of circumventing the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to make such decisions in a democratically-representative sense. Even if this instance was in fact constitutional, there have been numerous instances of Presidents simply ignoring the Constitution, Congress, and the War Powers Resolution in recent decades, and as recently as the 2011 attacks on Libya. [3] How can policy be considered to be determined by public opinion if the President is simply free to use the military however he sees fit? And that has happened in the cases of Reagan in El Salvador, Clinton in Kosovo, and--again--Obama in Libya and Pakistan. The Constitutionality of these incidents, at least, is hardly debatable. And in all of those cases, there was Congressional, and thus, ostensibly, public disapproval. [3] Also, there has been a totally consistent trend in a periodical Gallup poll asking voters "If the leaders of our nation followed the views of the public more closely, do you think the nation would be better off, or worse off than it is today?" The answer has been a resounding "better off" for about 35 years. This shows that Americans feel, and have felt for two generations at least, that the government not only could follow their views much more closely, but should. [4] I think that the fact that there was a propaganda campaign strengthens my argument, because the purpose of propaganda "is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person." [5][6] In this case, Bush started his propaganda campaign to further his cause in Iraq well ahead of the time of the "Authorization" of war, such as when he labeled Iraq as a member of the "axis of evil" as well as a "grave and growing danger" in his January 29, 2002 State of the Union address. [7] This culminated in his address given in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, about a week before the "authorization." The speech, among other things, said, for example, that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith." [8] Most of which is simply false. Indeed, independent, non-profit journalists conducted a study that "counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both." The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." [5] So then, the only question left here is whether a population that forms their opinion on public policy on the basis of false information provided by their government is actually having their opinion represented by said government, or is government policy actually determining their opinion? The Canadian example Con presents is, I think, a faulty comparison, as Con is ignoring the significant differences, such as that Canada was never accused of human rights abuses, "illegal" possession of W.M.D.s, or associating with terrorists. Con's speed limit analogy is a clever and useful illustration of the psychological effect(s) of "anchoring," whether he knows it or not, but in this case, as I have hopefully already demonstrated, I argue that he has reversed the chain of causality. Public opinion doesn't anchor policy, but rather it is quite the opposite. 2. This is simply incorrect. Ballot access is a prerequisite to even be placed on an official ballot, not to mention to get votes in an actual election. [9] This decision raises an already high bar by making competing with well-established and corporate-sponsored politicians and parties even more difficult for potential newcomers. [9] The most adamant dissenter of the vote, Justice Stevens, wrote, "The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind, and selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf." [10] In other words, it's still bribery, and an even worse kind than that involved in only the voting aspect of an election, because in order to get elected, you have to be on the ballot. [9] Even President Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." [10] Which is a statement that, if I took it at face value alone, instead of the empty appeasement I think it probably was, I would agree with. 3. Although I concede that the Congressional vote doesn't have to match the opinions of the public exactly, the fact remains that the majority of the public was not supportive of the bill "at the time." [11][12] Moreover, Bush yet again forced his will onto the public when he said that, "We are going to get a package passed,' and that "We will rise to the occasion, where Republicans and Democrats will come together and pass a substantial rescue plan.' [13] Even though there was, justifiably, significant disagreement and confusion in public opinion about the bill. [11][12] 4. The strength of my original argument on this point now rests mostly on the arguments and evidence in point 2, however, there are allegations that there are even steeper obstacles than I've already described. Since these approach "conspiracy theory" territory, I will simply point the audience to the evidence, and allow them to determine its role, if any, in the already well established facts of point 2. Here is the main source: http://www.votescam.org... The question of how the government would be different if voters had more options can't reasonably be answered, as the current parties determine what the issues are now. Only the point that it would be different is relevant. [4] Con's argument here that "politician's either had to change their minds about civil rights, or be replaced by someone who had" insinuates that people can just vote out all of the bad candidates. This is dubious, as it may be easy to vote out one "bad" candidate, but much more difficult to ensure that there's even one "good" candidate on the ballot. [9] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.gpo.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.gallup.com... [5] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [6] http://mason.gmu.edu... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://www.nytimes.com... [11] http://articles.latimes.com... [12] http://pewresearch.org... [13] http://www.bloomberg.com...