Representatives and Senators - the poll.

[bhunt70]

Poll question: Representatives and Senators - the poll.

I was sitting at my desk thinking about Congressmen and Senators and the job they do. I started thinking about their purpose which led me to this poll question. It's not loaded, I don't have an answer, just some food for thought.

If a senator or congressman votes for something that is unpopular to the people in the country but is beneficial to those people he represents is that a bad thing? Should the representative vote the way his constituents want him to, thus representing them- Or should the people place trust in their representative to make the best choice for them?

I don't think its black and white but I think there is truth in both.

[Racenut20]

1. The question is?

Are we a Democracy or a Republic. I believe we have a Republican form of Government (No I dont mean those guys), where the person is elected to exercise his judgement on the issues. If his constituants do not like the way he votes, they have the option to vote him out next election.

[Sir_Shrek]

2. I'm the only one so far....

...to vote the way his constiuents want him to. For one, if he doesn't, he'll obviously not be re-elected. Secondly, he was probably elected because he supported the same ideas the majority/plurality of his constituents supported as well. So in every vote he makes, he'll probably believe he's working in the best interest of the nation anyway.

[Mairead]

3. Voting your constituents' agenda is more or less the DEFINITION of repping

Voting one's own agenda is what rulers do.

[apsuman]

4. my dad taught me...

That reps should vote the way their district wants. This means, however, that the rep ran on the issues that made the majority of voters agreed with. So voting his way is voting their way. So, for a rep, it's both.

Now, for a senator, his/her job is different. They have to vote on issues that effect the entire nation, namely treaties. In those cases, it is the job of the senator to vote the way that benefits the country, because at that time they are voting for the whole country, not just their state.

[Mairead]

9. I think your dad's logic was a bit off

At the federal level, all laws affect everyone. So Gephardt's votes in the House for the invasion-and-massacre and the recent $87G pocket-picking affected people in Massachusetts just as much as Kerry's votes did.

Senators have as their constituency all voters in their state rather than in some fraction of the state, but their responsibility isn't otherwise much different. Senators and reps vote on different types of laws sometimes, but the laws still effect everyone in the US regardless.

5. this is an undecideable question

logistically and philosophically, more or less.

Just to really parse on an extreme level, what if 1,987,363 of the eligible voters in the state have one view and 1,987,362 of the eligible voters of the state have the opposite view. How should the representative vote? What if one of them changes their mind overnight?
How will the representative know for sure what the constituents want?

Legal definition of representative is one who stands for or acts on behalf of another -- what those terms mean is open to interpretation, isn't it?

also, think Nuremberg. If your constituents are the Klan or some similar type of reactionary, and you suddenly have a conversion to the other side...

etc.

[rucky]

6. In the information age

It's so easy for representatives to solicit input from their consituents - there's no excuse not to.

[plurality]

7. If you voted option 1 then don't complain about reps who voted for war...

despite calls from their constituents 1000-1 against.

[Bucky]

8. The answer is "both"

Sometimes they should represent the people first, sometimes serve the national interest above local interests, sometimes answer to their conscience above what the people at home or nationwide say. I wish it was an easy formula, but it's not.

The real question here may be are we a republic or a democracy, but the answer to that question is also "both." We are a democracy and a republic. To say we are not both is to deny we who are. In a democracy, the people rule. We're not a direct democracy, but when the elected reps don't do our will, we get rid of them. They anser to the people--it is a representative democracy, but the people are still the final authority.

In a republic, all citizens are equal. There is no classification of people--political equality between the richest heir and the poorest transient is our ideal (tho not always practiced). Even when other republics in the New World adapted some ceremonial garbs of office, like the presidential sashes and medallions in Latin America, the US rejected such things as being unrepublican.

This is why the Bush family dynasty is so bad for our country. It's not just their bad policies, but the nature of dynastic rule as conservative Kevin Phillips points out is such that it encourages leaders to make bad decisions just because their predecessors did the same thing. Fortunately as a democracy, we can get rid of these dynasties if we can get our act together.

[Mairead]

10. I think you state a very common view, but I don't think it's a good one

in a democracy. Representatives are elected by people in a certain region to vote the interests of the majority of people in that region, whether for good or ill. The idea that elected officials should be able to ignore the wishes of their electorate is a holdover from feudalism.

A good argument can be made that, before modern communication methods became available, elected officials had to have a lot of leeway to act independently of the known wishes of the people simply because information couldn't diffuse fast enough. Whence (in part!) our indirect, representative form of democracy.

But today that's not so--virtually instant communication is available. So unless we want to admit that we're duds who haven't the intelligence to take good decisions about our own wellbeing and thus need a real grown-up in charge, there's no reason why we shouldn't expect the people we're paying to represent us to actually damned well represent us.

[fabius]

11. Depends how you interpret the public good

I agree it's a balancing act. If you vote against your district / state too many times you will lose your job. That's as it should be.

I have a perfect example in Sen. Ron Wyden (OR) and David Wu (District 1) both voted for the awful Medicare bill in exchange for some pork-barrel for the Port of Portland. It is supposedly in the interests of the region but trades off some broader interests (seniors). So will I vote for a Repub to spite 'em? No, but too many of those will lose them votes.

There is a higher public good that has to be looked at and is worth it even if the sen/rep loses the next election.

[Bucky]

12. Sure, sometimes. But we're a rep. democracy to have a deliberative process

Sometimes a few people talking about a controversy can find a solution that the hurlyburly of public discourse can't. That's why you have juries instead of inquisative mobs to dispense justice. Twelve can deliberate where a thousand cannot. So when representatives sit down together, they can cut deals, find compromises, or develop creative "3rd way" solutions. This is the genius of our system. Should my reps represent me? Hell yes. But never think for themselves? Hell no.