Michael writes: > Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and George Wallace have > all been elected despite repeated challenges from worthy opponents. > I don't see how this implies that they were accountable in any moral > or ethical sense. I think that it only implies that they are > accountable in some pragmatic sense to the majority of their > constituents who voted to kept them in office. Democracy does > not guarantee high ethical standards; it only assures that, in > most cases, representatives reflect the will of the majority of > those who vote in elections.
My point, in this case, was not about ethics - Margaret mentioned that Phyllis was also not accountable. My point is she is, at least to the voters of her district. As for ethics, I do think when you call someone a liar there should be proof rather than mere disagreement. David Brauer King Field TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
