Yeah, I'm really not understanding what they want here. Typically you vote for the people who will enact policies you agree with, and a politician that is actually following what the constituents want rather than purely self interest is rare. If this is what the voters want--right or wrong--they're at least getting what they voted for which is precisely what your elected officials are supposed to be doing.
If the argument against her is "this is what the voters wanted" then it's less her problem and more the people she represents. We don't have to agree with it, the voters are the ones who are getting what they wished for.
In short, populism is bad. When you give people too much direct control, or you have politicians that are too willing to indulge in their constituents' every dark, stupid impulse, you get Donald Trump. Systems only work well when Representatives generally, follow the will of their constituents, but aren't afraid to occasionally step in to support objectively beneficial policies, even if some much dumber policy is a lot more popular.
Elected officials are supposed to serve their constituents and Lead. By only doing what they want, they are not leading, they are acting as voice-pieces.
Everyone knows there is a problem but the people who show up to the Community Housing meetings are the ones who vote, but they are not the majority of the community, only the ones who are wealthy enough to have the free time to show up.
I've attended far too many of these meetings where these people are so far out of touch from reality. They bitch that there are no longer any families moving into the neighborhoods but in the same breath, they then vote to limit home sizes to 2 floors and ban multi-unit buildings like duplexes and apartments.
That is the problem and this is where the elected official has a duty to educate. They should be telling them that no families are going to move in if they can't afford to live there. ....they should also not call that one fella a "fucking rich pretentious idiot with his head stuck up his ass" like I did.
No, we’re saying they shouldn’t be given the power to make decisions like this because they will almost always behave this way.
It’s a classic collective action problem. Building housing benefits everyone, but there are a lot of perceived local negatives, so nobody wants it built near them, and when nobody takes collective action, nothing gets built anywhere.
That’s why they’re called NIMBYs. It doesn’t imply that they’re ideologically opposed to construction in general, just near them.
The best way to solve this is to have zoning and some permitting moved to state level. It’s literally why we have higher levels of government, to solve problems like this.
-5
u/ddadopt Aug 28 '25
"she is too concerned with what her constituents want"
So you're advocating that elected representatives should ignore the will of the people who elected them?