This is a bit silly. Right-to-repair (and to be clear, I'm all for it) wasn't on the NY ballot. There wasn't a referendum, it wasn't anyone's key campaign issue, etc. Dismissing representatives for a vote on any one issue would pretty quickly leave us with zero.

(As the edit to the article indicates, the bill isn't subject to a pocket veto, either.)

> This is a bit silly.

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.

It's not inherently corrupt for a representative to vote in a way that's not a perfect representation of their constituents' opinion polling.

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.

> It's not inherently corrupt for a representative to vote in a way that's not a perfect representation of their constituents' opinion polling.

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.

> ...it's only been on her desk for two business days.

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."

I'd advise reading the entire article.

> 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.

What is the general sense being expressed to them currently? It's there any effort made to see how the average person in their district feels about the issue? What about those who have an opinion?

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.

> What is the general sense being expressed to them currently?

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.

> Dismissing representatives for a vote on any one issue would pretty quickly leave us with zero.

Good.

For about five minutes.

There tend to be downsides of political systems that don't have elected representatives.

Electing ourselves into a power vacuum.

Oh I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what an almost unanimous vote to pass by the New York legislature means? This person was not elected to ignore the state senate, no matter who you voted for. Their job is to ratify bills that passed the house, not to let them die for the lulz

> Their job is to ratify bills that passed the house, not to let them die for the lulz

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.

Yes. However, this is after the fact when the damage is already done. Referendums allow people to directly change decisions that public disagrees with and force the representatives to obey the outcome. They are as democratic as it gets - direct will of the people.

Of course, propaganda is still a powerful enemy, but at least people have a chance to win against rich lobbies.

If we were serious about politicians actually representing the will of the residents in their district people it would be way more accurate if policy and votes were based on a public statistical analysis sanity checked only by "is what the people want actually doable."

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.

This is the governor, not a district member. They are elected, by the entire state, to represent the entire state in federal context. Whether you voted for them or not, they still represent you and one of their jobs is to sign bills passed by the house. If they don't do that, they should get fired.

People don't vote on representatives. People (en masse) vote along party lines or on name/ideology recognition.

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".

While it is accurate that most people vote on party basis, it is straightforwardly not the case that advertising budgets dictate campaign victories, especially in the larger, more visible races.

You can't blame people for voting on "party line" when there are only two parties to vote on. That's a problem we can't solve, so let's not shame folks for dealing with it.

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.

> When the house votes, almost unanimously to pass a bill, the governor's job is to sign it

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.

No, we should also be concerned about the 317 days, and the state should fire said governor for refusing to do their job.

I don't like the NY governor (for a whole list of reasons), but not signing a bill and pocket vetoing it - if that's wants she wants to do - is not her "refusing to do her job". It's fully defined as something she can do by their constitution. If you don't like that, campaign for a NY State constitutional amendment to reduce the time period of a pocket veto.

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.

This is an old topic in the political philosophy of representative democracies: is a representative supposed to just do whatever the most popular sentiment is? Or are they supposed to use their best judgement—given they, presumably, spend more time looking into and thinking about various issues, and have access to better experts and advisors than most members of the general public—even when that's sharply counter to public sentiment? Somewhere in between? Where does the line fall?

I expect the representatives to represent my interest and make a judgement. I don't expect them to do just exactly what I would have done. When a potential law is drafted and works through the process to become law, it goes through bargaining between legislators.

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.