Scott Mayers

Jacee, Note too that I take issue with the Residential School claims because they are generic charges without accountability. I already question the fact that churches were even given the power to run these. It is like the government subcontracting to private industries to which besides this being questioned for a social service, we have to ask why the particular religious institutes themselves who ran them are not held fully accountable. But to the charges, the accusation of abuse lacks substance if they are not pointing out who particularly are the abusers and have them charged in a court of law where we presume one innocent until proven guilty. This is perverse thinking itself. Our governments merely accepting the charges on hearsay is another example of convenient protection by the very relatives who are actually responsible to the cause but only agree to settling to prevent the potential losses personally of their own officially protected group as they had deemed Constitutional and to spread the loss to the population en mass instead. I think I'd hold off on any judgement without a fair trial, not merely anecdotal stories of abuses. It is also extremely suspect that the whole of all the residential schools along with all the various religious groups and teachers have all acted conspiratorially to abuse. I notice we seem to have a present environment here in Canada that embraces FORMAL charges of abuses by people that are being publicly asserted without initially enabling the court process to decide first. For instance, last December seemed to be a month of multiple charges of male abuses by women through the media which bypassed the process of awaiting one to have a right to trial before the accusations had taken trial by the masses. Ironically, we do not even allow the media to record the court cases to which would potentially reverse any media accusations made against someone where they may be found innocent, which doubly biases anyone accused of something to be condemned by mere anecdotal claims of abuse.

My point here is that we are HERE to discuss our disagreements with the present system, regardless of whether it is or is not 'legal'. If we had no concern to discuss something unless it was already legal, what's the point of this site other than to potentially give kudos to the system? So, back to your own preference here to the status quo in law, should it change tomorrow where we might have a law that says all women and Aboriginals should be interned in camps to be executed, would you throw up your hands and say, "Oh, I guess since it is 'legal' now, I shall just shut up and accept my fate!"?

I don't accept. And its not like my freedom to speak on it makes the legal system actually change unless it appeals to others. Are we simply supposed to shut up where we disagree just in case others might follow the concern and decide to vote for those who might change the system? To even speak of the Indigenous people is off to me. We are all of this Earth and my own thinking relates more to the traditional Indigenous ancestors than their own progeny today. At least with respect to the idea of 'ownership', the ancestral Indigenous were still either nomadic or semi-nomadic here in Canada. They didn't claim any 'right' to land permanently and why they were overcome by the Old World people who had already gone through this transition from tribal transient life to settled civilization. If you want to give the Indigenous the rights of the ancestors of here and be sincere to culture etc, than we'd have to abandon declared ownership of lands altogether. "Ownership" was based on 'routes' and temporary places. Regardless, all past assertions to hold up Treaties as perpetual contracts are not sound. You may believe that if you 'own' a piece of property that you SHOULD have a right to impose a legal sanction to assure that ALL future peoples of this nation MUST assure that a member of your personal family has supreme authority over it. Right? But "ownership" is more of a temporary privilege. Otherwise, the Queen can technically declare all of us as being "owned" by her if she so wished to assert it. That is, if you accept the contracts made in the ancient past regardless of its 'fairness', you'd also have to accept that given our Monarchy that even legitimized those past laws, you have to accept the right of 'our' Queen to also be allowed to kick us ALL off the land.

I think you're playing a duck. [As in, a dumb decoy, if you can't get this either.] "Canadian" official ancestors who created the very laws in our government along with the "Treaties" and laws placing Natives into Reserves. I had to look this one up. It's one of those 'laws' created likely by the very idiots who are justly accused of being the arrogant Nationalists they are. I accuse you definitely of being a "Nationalist" if you yourself invoke accepting legitimacy to divisions of people based on genetic, racial, or cultural heritage. The comparison to Germany is justified here, with inclusion of what you are saying to -i=e^ipi by asserting "legitimacy" when the very system of who legalizes refers the government in power no matter how good or evil they may be. By simply standing by some legal position isn't sufficient to justify what is or is not alright. If it is the case, then it is just as simple to (POOF!) create any arbitrary law that makes you a criminal "legally", throw you in prison, and toss away the key. What those of us complaining against our present system requires questioning the system as is in order to CHANGE what we disapprove of. Otherwise, what's the use in ever questioning ANY present system. Do you propose that whatever system is in place should be conserved period? And if so, then let's return to a period prior to another arbitrary time before the British got here. Should we all not go back to Europe now because our ancestors may have come from there? And like -i pointed out, we could all probably go back to Africa too. Should we all have some intrinsic right to everywhere some ancestor lived? I could even go further and say that by our evolution, each of us had been everywhere on this Earth. And so regardless of what you prefer to favor as "legal" is no different than FORCE itself. You ARE a Nationalist. And if you favor a Socialism only for a set of specific peoples based on any contingent history, you are a "National Socialist" by the intentional understanding of the German party of WWII. I am thus using it appropriately here as opposed to some mere unrelated accusation. This doesn't follow either. Again, merely pointing out formal legality is about our present status external to the political philosophy in question here. Our system is flawed because it has "legalized" certain things against the demos (the people) as individuals. It favors select Imperially designated and authoritative supremacy of specific genetic groups of people based on nothing but COMMAND and FORCE without negotiating of the people. Also at question is laws as such that act in PERPETUITY. How or why we have a Constitution that Conserves for all future times these racially divisive ideas is just another proof of our policies as Nationalistic in a similar kind to Germany. If you want a more modern example, the State of Israel is now one. Does it make you feel better to be compared to the past heritage of the victims instead who have now embraced the same National Socialist ideology? Either way, if you stick to our present condition of supporting Multiculturalism, to me it is clearly Nationalist and NOT of the kind to favor the whole, as in the U.S., by contrast. Multiculturalism is legal here. If this is all you have to reaffirm, than you're not adding anything other than a kudos for it.

No, but some of those original ancestors are in power today due to the wealth based upon it AND if you dismiss this, then should you also not dismiss the fact that not even today's Natives 'own' their misfortune and so cannot hold anyone accountable either? Wow! Now imagine a Nazi saying this to the Jews in Germany!

But are those holes are pink? I wear pink all the time when I'm at home alone. I just have to make sure to remember to close the blinds first! My pink clothes were specially designed from an Emperor's assistant somewhere. It's close fitting too...skin tight in fact!

That's one vote. This only reflects your own circumstances as being of relative comfort in it. I question our politics because it always acts exclusive in some way regardless as it favors special Nationalists (as I defined above) with arrogant dismissal of those they ignore. I also believe the Natives were and are treated bad in contrast to many. But I don't believe our present Constitution adds value to solving such problems as it is specifically just begging that we all use the same discriminating tactics that turns people against each other rather than unites. The individual needs to be recognized as the most significant minority, not the assigned groups based on genetic inherent ideas.

We got the sunshine We got the shade We got temptation We got it made We got rewarded We got refused We got distorted We got confused We got the sunshine We got the shade I want it all, I want it all I want it all, I want it all Metric's "The Shade" video Cool tune, right? I can't be sure what she was particularly referring to but have to agree that this is really what it is all about. I welcome embracing whatever we choose without limitations or standards set by other's expectations of who or what we should be. But I approve of those who at least aren't being hypocritical to it. Women are now being able to be most 'free' this way but hopefully men won't be limited either. (I still wouldn't like even seeing men where high heels though. I know I'm likely in the minority on that. But it reminds me of the old Chinese tradition of having women break and contort or bind their feet to so they could fit in those tiny doll shoes.)

Wait, you forgot one, Which sex does the majority of giving the money to the other to meet the above needs for their interests? Which sex would turn down the other for not complying with this arrangement, no matter how 'feminist' one would define themselves?

I'll just post the Old Spice channel page: https://www.youtube.com/user/OldSpice Another 'manly-man' set are the one's from Europe, called "The Most Interesting Man in the World" with the serious voicings of one of those PBS documentary narrator's (see the Wikipedia page for those details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Interesting_Man_in_the_World video link

I smell an Old Spice commercial in the air...

I appreciate Trump's honesty even where he could be wrong. This interview was funny and this part is at the end. I recommend others to see the whole thing prior to this book. But this was hilarious: video

Like yourself here and now? The CBC requires a good registration capacity to identify us, especially as they want to appeal to Canadians when we speak. They also have even in their regulations a declaration that they can and will post members with their real names. I also use my own real namesake there.

I can't figure out how ties for men's suits mean anything. Likely a sincere means to store one's scarf to be used in survival scenarios but more of a risk to wear as they are now! Or, how or why women would even care to wear high-heel shoes, especially those that contort their toes into sharp points?! I've heard it somehow makes their legs nicer looking in some way. But I still find it rather awkward to even look at women walking in them like they're more unnecessarily delicate....especially if she's also a feminist!!

I don't know if this'll work to post. But here's a positive one I like:

To the OP, I agree that religion isn't the sole (or soul?) cause of problems directly. You mentioned ideology though in a separate distinction as if all ideology has something in common to which only some religions do. The reverse is more the case because religion is merely one form of ideology. If we define "ideology" to mean any system of practice based on some idealized goal which is believed to work, and restrict this to politics alone, it would more appropriately be best to interpret the problem in all ideology (including religion) as having the property of MORALITY encompassed in the laws it uses to justify being enforced AND that to any such political ideology, they all deal with a common goal to determine how to make people ECONOMICALLY FAIR. Of course, in the last factor, "fairness" is also an intrinsic factor of morality. So the reason religion is often an undercurrent tied into politics in one way or the other is because the remote nature of a God who equally represents ones' interpretation of Nature itself commanding which things are right or not, means that even non-religious ideologies the have some form of faith in even some natural absolute that commands which things are 'right' versus which things are 'wrong' is the key here. Communism may be atheistic in that they don't always appeal to traditional theistic beings. But without realizing it, Communism itself is more often not actually practiced (nor be able to) because it proposes a faith in a future and its progeny with equivalent question. For instance, how could you assert concern for a generation of children in some future of which you cannot participate in personally. If you are sincerely absent of religion, it is not any more insignificant whether a comet comes by the moment you die than to have even the best of paradise in some future which you cannot ever possibly be a real part of? So religion or the key foundations of it are what underlies all political ideologies that have the most potential to cause problems. This is because, the component of religion that justifies one's politics, whether apparently beneficial or not, resides in something lacking evidence to nature requiring any amount of fairness or moral concern. It may also be equally troublesome should one simply rule without any belief in a religion if one is sufficiently powerful to get what they command politically no matter what. For instance, if one had discovered a super bomb that could effectively destroy the whole world with a simple thought, such a person would not even have any concern to bother questioning whether there is or is not a god nor whether they are being 'fair' or not. In fact, in this way, they BECOME a god in their own right. (Reminds me of "Rap God" by Eminem where he poses the unspoken presumption by others that he thinks he's some kind of delusional King. He answers this throughout but ends on, "Why be(come) a king, when you can be a god?" [Drops mic.]) Politics are actually all about ones' capacity to FORCE others to comply by those empowered to do so. And it DOES begin with differences of economy. Basically, economy is simply survival when one is suffering or being prevented from getting what they want (including needs) to some degree. But where such power is never perfectly absolute, one's capacity to justify it acts as a type of force that is or can be highly effective. Even if you happen to be the most powerful being AND know that you have no more significant superiority to justify command beyond your own selfish whims, it would get lonely on your throne if you also depend on others to at least provide some of your wants in a way that is most appealing. I am confident that if we could all BE gods in some way and live as long as we desired, we would run the full gambit from supremely compassionate to utter violation of others if only to merely entertain ourselves once we got bored of behaving one way or the other for too long. And then, I also believe that if we could live long enough whether eternally in some heaven or hell, we'd come to a point where we'd only wish for death in a most permanent way for ourselves rather than be utterly exhausted of boredom from doing it all OR from evading potential torment in any way. So does this change how you think about whether religion is or is not a functional cause of harm on others? Certainly, if you perceive one or another as beneficial, it is more about perception than anything. I agree that if one is driven with an incentive to be most altruistic and kind, religion often takes a large role in this way too. But where a religious person may ACT out of duty or reward for their behavior, non-religious persons may still be this way but do it without delusion that they are doing for some incentive. If there is some discrepancy between facts of those who actually DO behave more altruistically via religion or not, if the absence of good nature is severely lacking in the non-religious, this is sufficient proof that we are intrinsically hopeless to interpret good acts regardless. It would also prove that for those potential majority of do gooders who ARE religious, are just as likely doing it for severe selfish drives (to be rewarded in heaven, etc).

Eastern Canadian interests by those who benefited in reserving people like cattle, like Liberal-Party Supporters' family relatives, for instance, require the Constitutional policies they initiated of Multiculturalism in order to prevent them from the liability that their own particular gains were earned on from the past. By at least appearing favorable to Aboriginal concerns under the same restricted banner of select Ontario/Quebec ancestral benefactors, they do three things: (1) Appear apologetic to those they've had more intimate fault at creating from their ancestors while still desiring to maintain their biases privately; (2) Foster the Aboriginals to conspire like one in a gang may be initiated to incriminate themselves in order to assure compliance and instigate internal conflict to keep them both loyal to the established group and make them equally responsible should they later try to back out. Our Liberals desired this the strongest since they represent the 'conservatives' of the general Catholic and Anglican philosophies embedded in their beliefs in authoritative god-heads. At least, to our Canadian original Upper-Lower states in the Far East of present Canada, their loyalties to dictatorial monarchs conforms to the ideal of class divisions based on ethnic and racial supremacy granted to them through their own interpreted beliefs. This is why the favor both 'liberal' economics (their wealth) and 'liberal' social policy to some extend, as this is a functional aspect of the bureaucratically-driven governance through Church authorities. (3) Disperse the debts of their particular liabilities to the masses by sacrificing those who appear at equal cause to pay for it. Thus the poor non-Catholic, non-Christian, non-Aboriginal, members in society who lack protections take on the burden imposed by all those groups in kind. Multiculturalism is intentionally a smoke screen to feign diversity and love of cultures when in fact they want to both conserve differences but in a way that legitimizes their own right to discriminate in law. These are the three main factors as I see it. I believe that ALL nationalistic pride and protections do this, including divisions on sex. And I also believe that we are all vulnerable to reflectively doing this. The Conservatives favor the Mono-cultural Christian ethic of full Protestant religions since they act independent of religious authorities and bureaucracy AND, for the most part, they interpret even the Christian as equally 'sinful' as any other human being. This is why they favor liberal economics BUT are more conservative in social-law restrictions. Though not traditionally a 'white vs other' religion, they see original Christianity as naturally inclusive of all people. They favor fundamental believers, including other non-Christian ones that believe in the same freedom to assert ownership rights as the Earthly life whether fair or not, is "fixed" in their certain belief in a God who'll repair any injustices, including ones they may have caused. Thus they are more compassionate to those who are wealthier by default. The social democrats, (towards Communism), such as our NDP, are socially liberal, but economically conservative. While this may by default favor the poor in contrast to the wealth that Conservatives or Liberals hold, the nature of our Western society relies on requires money to support these parties at a minimal. As such, they resort to favor those majority pluralities who fund them more and belong to the Nationalities, cultural, ethnic, and religious groups, not individuals, in those less economically viable. Either way, Canada is doomed by our present Constitution simply because Nationalism, Culture, Ethnicity, and Religion are equally favored by the groups over the individual regardless. As such, divisions based on inherent wealth/poverty AND culture/ethnicity will prevail over the democratic individuals of society not fitting in these particular favored interests. Unless we attend to defeat what is summed up as Nationalisms, we cannot have a chance to ever make Canada a viable and successful democracy. While many think the U.S. is somehow worse, it's First Amendment is a type of Constitutional element we need to remove PARTICULAR cultural/religious/ethnic forms that lead to discrimination of one form or another no matter what. And the same National fervor is also the factor(s) in even the American government. But at least, their First Amendment is the ideal first step to defeating Nationalism. It just needs to be better worded and enforced to prevent any one nationalistic group from prevailing.

I didn't see the comments of concern. However, I DO know from experience posting there that they ALWAYS screen each and every post. I had trouble with this before where they'd selectively NOT post what I might write or respond to with such inability to appropriately create a fair representation in many responses. It also raises the question politically that since those moderating are private censors of the privately owned site AND they are protected from accountability since they can represent a particular political bias, our content being moderated can also be manipulated to appear more problematic than it is. If you want to prove a crowd 'bad', just focus attention on the bad and remove the good IF that crowd is representing something unfavorable to those capable of policing it. So I question whether the abuse actually exists. It is just as likely too that regardless of potential dissent in common, the act of total censorship is purposely done to prevent what the censors realize is actually representing true sincerity of the majority. I don't believe in bullying or abuses even by the masses. But it can be curtailed by the very involvement of those participating. Censorship to any degree by moderation should be removed from our public media, period!

Comparison of Politics that create degrees of discrimination of race: Right-wing belief The individual should have a right to 'own' with more priority. Problem: the plurality with the largest Nationality of the wealthiest, along with their culture, beliefs, and traditions, prevail. But while those who are wealthier have 'pride' in their own ethnicity/religions of which they credit their worth, the delude other groups into thinking their fortune is about their race/ethnicity/religion. Left-wing belief: The group should have a right to 'own' with more priority. Problem: What is defined as a group? If the whole is taken in respect, they have to also accept the supposed ethnicity/race of those with the largest plurality. So they oppose that or those groups in highest representation of wealth based on ethnicity/race. Both The culture of largest plurality(s) in each economic class should 'own' with more priority, whether they be individuals OR groups. Problem: Both arrogantly presume the cult of majorities in most representation in each economic class should be granted the privilege over the individual who lacks any belief in ethnic/religious definitions. For the left, the shunned are those of the genetic race represented by the right; for the right, the shunned are any other groups or individuals not belonging to their own genetic race nor wealth class. Both exclude the natural mixes between people who either oppose their race by appearance or to their willingness to abide by the stereotype to convene to the assumption of the majority of those racial classes. Since the white male is most vilified by the non-white/non-male minorities by the left AND are vilified by the white who judge those white males who are poor as equally worthless as their non-white/non-any-sex minorities, the single white male who is poor is more often the distinct genetic marker who gets discriminated by everyone. To the minorities in the same impoverished environment, they interpret the white among them as naturally privileged as if they have a wealthy relative who would save them no matter what; To the majority (or minority) of the wealthy, they only pity the poor regardless of where they are from, which includes the white male who is also poor too. Note that I do NOT think that the white male is the ONLY target. Any non-fitting individuals both in poverty and not associated with what society thinks they should belong to by those who associate with cultural/genetic identities are equally discriminated against. As a white male, I would NOT believe in associating in a group of "white males" to make a stand because it is just what all the other prejudiced society expects us to do because of their own nationalistic errant beliefs. Yet, we are being more neglected by what we are not privileged to that even minorities in similar impoverished environments get simply for having a positive genetic component that is equally accepted by their opposing groups. We are stereotyped as wealthy by equals in poverty, and worthless or lazy by those dominating in the culture of the same appearance but who are actually wealthy. Its a lose/lose for many. Its the Nationalists of both extremes that are creating the problems. They both agree to being discriminate against one or more races yet both penalize the weakest in their 'own' race for not colluding as a Nationality. The wealthy of the dominant cultures WIN as they get the dominant cultures of the poor to act equally racist by buying their political acceptance at least in some partial degree. But they don't actually 'sacrifice' anything. The sacrifice is to those even more minor minorities who get excluded because they are not of any group.

Yes it does. My 'diatribe' is about how our acts of government to [act] more restrictive through censoring or monitoring online activity is intentionally a goal that was sought prior to any real [related] reason [to the asserted problems]. By exploiting issues that 'appear' as sufficiently emotionally driven serve to enable them to create the laws that allow us to lose our freedom. Cyber bullying CAN be effectively eliminated by the very participants online without moderation. It doesn't remove the abuses but in time, the very public will learn to handle these cases in ways that don't limit our necessary freedoms in other ways. EDITS: in the above brackets.

In light of a few related discussion on this forum, I've defended the position NOT to censor in public forums, especially with respect to our government sites. The major reason is this 'fallacy' of which the Wikipedia entry on this expands on the details. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context In particular, see the "Contextomy" heading which refers to leaving out significant information in context. Censorship does this in this way as they can shape, just a other media do, what gets communicated. Even the most potentially innocent words of someone could be shaped to appear troubling. With respect to media, many political interests want an excuse to censor by legitimizing a concern against things we emotionally agree should not exist. The Harper government did this with respect to the girl who was bullied and committed suicide. They previously tried to present a law that enabled their power to censor indiscriminately our online activity by our secret services. But it couldn't pass until that girl (Amanda Todd). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd This is NOT simply something that any one political party would do over another. It is unavoidable where sincere emotions are involved and where one wants to conserve (in general) some political ideal or position.

Actual Example?: See my thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25358-i-am-being-censured-by-when-i-try-to-publish-on-multicultural/#entry1123597 AND check the link to the YouTube page I commented on, I posted that quoted in #1 twice which were removed. Then they left my response in disgust of the censor there. It may not be a good example but compare what I intended to be published compared to what they left AND then just read the other person's comments which they left who appeared 'off'.

Any acts to censorship with respect to government or online activities are more suspect to be about those who want to find any means to control what we see or hear in the media. I am certain from my own experience that things like the ban with CBC to eliminate ALL commenting on the recent concern against the native community is a fraud. All our government sites are actually privately owned and moderated. They are also isolated and protected of their privacy to act. With the CBC sites, they have ALWAYS been strict on censorship and moderation. But from experience, I've sometimes tried to post a set of posts linked on issue but if or where they dislike the message as a whole, they've eliminated the posts that actually provide closure to what they leave behind. And this is testable. If you post X, Y, and Z of which as a whole may be non-insulting, but you make Y in context 'look' insulting if X and Z are removed, they sometimes take out the X and Z which makes Y non-problematic but alone LOOKS insulting. Thus, I'm suspect of the supposed abuses claimed of the recent banning of commenting on CBC on the basis of 'hate speech' or other abuses because (1) They ARE strict by default in moderation and so raises the question of how such commenting that is supposedly unwelcome could have gotten through. It also suggests, given what I've experienced as above and to which you can even test for yourself, that the moderators may be purposely allowing the derogatory comments and holding back on the more rational ones in order to politically act. Since (2) Censorship through private moderation on our public forums exists at all with such protection, should we not question whether we are the ones being manipulated into thinking what has occurred is true when we are not eligible to determine this publicly? Example test to try (saying this here may now destroy this possibility though): Find a message that you want to relay with good logic on the CBC where you have one part of it that could appear questionable if the full message is not presented. Separate these into at least two posts where one looks contentious if it stands alone out of context of the whole. It should be a comment that is most likely politically unfavorable to a strong position of the site, like an argument against Multiculturalism but FOR Interculturalism or the American Melting Pot assimilation concept. As I've found already, they've often removed a continuous thread which loses clarity of position when they selectively leave what may make you look bad without full disclosure. Try it. It won't be 'objective' though other than to yourself unless you properly set it up in participation with others. I assure you that ANY censorship is bad merely based on moderation because it is too hard for one's political position not to affect their choices to moderate. This is why they Americans realized intellectually they needed to assure the first Amendment: Our government directly opposes this and it is intentional.

I was talking of the House of Representatives, not the Presidents election. What does Gerrymandering have to do with anything? This is just altering constituency boundaries (we did this here the last election but don't call it that) often with intent to bias favor for or against ones' party. The point I was making was that the 'Representatives', regardless of party affiliation, have the power to be voted and represent the interests of their local elect, not required to favor the party of which they are associated with. I believe that it was at least a better step forward towards better democracy than our system inherited by the British. If you go to a Representative for help, while their own political preferences influence their acts, they know that their constituents will come to them from indeterminately mixed backgrounds such that they cannot determine their voting preferences based on independent interests, even if it is one that contrasts with their party ideal. Here, it is enough that should you go to our MP/MLA, your ability to get the help you need is dependent upon whether they can determine your party interests based on the particular question you ask. And when or where this is difficult for them to establish, they get suspicious and reluctant to help in sincerity. Our 'representatives' only appear to be relevant for election when we are never significantly informed of their personal political views until they are in office. They are merely faces or names on our ballots but we vote for the party as it is the leader of these parties that get 'sold' along with their platform or ideals as a whole. The separation of the President from its House of Representatives also allows the representing members to differ significantly from the selected leader. A Democrat can be the President while the representatives could be of a majority in opposition to Democrats. The president also represents the temporary "sovereign" that we think of with regards the Queen. And so dictatorships are hard to come by there, even if their country as a whole may be like this with respect to foreign affairs.

The American politicians have actual representatives at least. This means they have to represent their constituency. They also 'sell' their individual role as a representative, not the party to which they associate with. Our Canadian elections are only 'representative' in appearance. In fact, logically, there is no need to actually mention our local 'representative' as most often we know nothing of them and are sold directly on the ideals of the party they represent, not the constituents. We are merely 'commoners' (a pejorative description of the general population) as our house indicates. So they may as well not mention local representatives until the votes are in and then have the party simply assign them.