to what extent should politicians represent their constituents?

[nageov3t]

just a random question inspired by a recent Politico article about John McCain...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41339.html

to what extent do you think that politicians should represent the interests and opinions of their constituents versus their own personal views on an issue?

 

[StageLeft]

Just enough to get elected, then start getting fed money by lobbyists.

 

[yllus]

I remember learning in Canadian civics/history class that our members of federal parliament are mandated to make decisions firstly in the interests of the entire nation, and secondly for their direct constituents. I think I agree with that rationale.

 

[Kappo]

I remember learning in Canadian civics/history class that our members of federal parliament are mandated to make decisions firstly in the interests of the entire nation, and secondly for their direct constituents. I think I agree with that rationale.

As should ANYONE who lives in a country (the lost guy in the rainforest is kinda exempt).

 

[BoomerD]

I remember learning in Canadian civics/history class that our members of federal parliament are mandated to make decisions firstly in the interests of the entire nation, and secondly for their direct constituents. I think I agree with that rationale.

The rub comes in that the "best interests of the nation" change depending on who's buying the politician...and keep in mind that (at least in the USA) "we the people" only get to vote for the candidates that "we the corporations" allow us to vote for. THEY ultimately pick the candidates by their very liberal use of campaign monies. We really have little-to-no say in our politics anymore.

So...who are the REAL constituents of the politician?

The "people" or the corporations who give them billions of dollars to do their bidding?

 

[MotF Bane]

I remember learning in Canadian civics/history class that our members of federal parliament are mandated to make decisions firstly in the interests of the entire nation, and secondly for their direct constituents. I think I agree with that rationale.

Sounds good. Do the right thing, per the Constitution and for the nation, and then consider the constituents.

 

[Moonbeam]

just a random question inspired by a recent Politico article about John McCain...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41339.html

to what extent do you think that politicians should represent the interests and opinions of their constituents versus their own personal views on an issue?

It doesn't matter. In all cases people get the politicians they deserve. Who they elect is who they are. What politicians are IS the interest and opinion of the people. The interests and opinions of the people are selfish so they elect people who vote any damn way they please that is in their interests and the lobbyists insure what that is.

Nobody who hates himself is going to vote for a superior person with greater vision and an interest in the welfare of others except by accident, and nobody of that caliber will run.

In a world filled with self hate there can only be shit. We see the shit but not the self hate so that's the way it will stay.

 

[rudder]

The representative simply can't cast a vote based on the will of the majority. Otherwise why even have a congress. If it something like a healthcare bill and there is overwhelming opinion against such a bill... they should listen to the constituency.

 

[Atreus21]

just a random question inspired by a recent Politico article about John McCain...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41339.html

to what extent do you think that politicians should represent the interests and opinions of their constituents versus their own personal views on an issue?

I really think it comes down to their personal views. Because their personal views will tell them when to yield to the will of their constituents, and when to override them.

If I were a representative, I think I'd use my personal views in general, unless there was an overwhelming percentage of my electorate in favor of an issue contradictory to my views, in which case I'd yield to them.

A representative owes his constituents both his obedience and his judgement. Sometimes the two contradict. Nature of the beast.

 

[soulcougher73]

I would always go with the constituents view unless it was unconstitutional. You are an elected representative of the people and that is technically as far as it should go. Of course that is not the way it is in reality. They are bought and paid for by special interests and corportations. It is no longer about doing the right thing, it is now about 'show me the money'. Quite sad what our country as turned into.

I for one welcome our Wal-Mart overlords.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Politicians support the citizens of their district through constituent services. Their legislative votes should represent the best interests of the nation as a whole.

And when did 'polling data' become a measuring stick? That is as lame as it gets, and is effectively Mob Rule.

I guess the principles behind Federalist No. 10 and the concept of representative democracy is beyond the grasp of the Dumb Ass Mentality prevalent in the USA today ...




--

 

[spidey07]

The entire reason for congress is to represent The People. That's why we have the house, local representation of We The People. The whole reason behind The Constitution is LOCAL representation. What world do folks live in where they don't think politicians should represent The People? WTF country do you live in if you think like this?

Absolutely politicians should represent their constituents. We are their BOSS and can hire and fire them at will.

 

[yllus]

The entire reason for congress is to represent The People. That's why we have the house, local representation of We The People. The whole reason behind The Constitution is LOCAL representation. What world do folks live in where they don't think politicians should represent The People? WTF country do you live in if you think like this?

Absolutely politicians should represent their constituents. We are their BOSS and can hire and fire them at will.

Then why isn't your system that of a direct democracy? If you want the exact will of each citizen represented, there's your winning formula.

 

[nonlnear]

"Representation" is an aspirational fantasy, like "the rule of law". It's well and good to discuss it in terms of how to ever so slightly improve our horrific approximation of it, but when the conversation starts talking about it as something that we are close to (or worse, that we actually have) then it's time to walk away and look for better conversation.

There are people who have a voice, and people who don't. There is virtually no middle ground. The only reason "representative" governments work is because so many people are content not to be represented.

 

[spidey07]

Then why isn't your system that of a direct democracy? If you want the exact will of each citizen represented, there's your winning formula.

I was describing our representative republic, not direct democracy. Local voices speak best for their own set of interests.

 

[xj0hnx]

Then why isn't your system that of a direct democracy? If you want the exact will of each citizen represented, there's your winning formula.

Because we aren't a direct democracy. We are a representative republic. That's the whole point of our system, areas elect a Representative to represent them in Congress.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Representation" is an aspirational fantasy, like "the rule of law". It's well and good to discuss it in terms of how to ever so slightly improve our horrific approximation of it, but when the conversation starts talking about it as something that we are close to (or worse, that we actually have) then it's time to walk away and look for better conversation.

There are people who have a voice, and people who don't. There is virtually no middle ground. The only reason "representative" governments work is because so many people are content not to be represented.

Well I think we have it. It's just that we don't much like our reflections and can't believe that's us.

 

[dahunan]

When a Corporation got entitled to personhood you all lost any representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

 

[spidey07]

When a Corporation got entitled to personhood you all lost any representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Bullshit. They don't get to vote, We The People do. Also in case you didn't know there are thousands of groups that will represent your wishes the same as "those evil corporations". They're called political action committees and I'm an active member of a few of them.

If you want your voice to be heard then do something about it. But stop with the corporations being all corporationy, it's a sign of ignorance.

 

[dahunan]

Bullshit. They don't get to vote, We The People do. Also in case you didn't know there are thousands of groups that will represent your wishes the same as "those evil corporations". They're called political action committees and I'm an active member of a few of them.

If you want your voice to be heard then do something about it. But stop with the corporations being all corporationy, it's a sign of ignorance.

Then ask Fannie and Freddie and your banking buddies to be honest and give back the money they stole.. TIA

 

[yllus]

I was describing our representative republic, not direct democracy. Local voices speak best for their own set of interests.

Because we aren't a direct democracy. We are a representative republic. That's the whole point of our system, areas elect a Representative to represent them in Congress.

No... That's the point I was making. If what you want is local concerns being voiced at the federal level, you'd institute a direct democracy. The fact that the American system is not that implies that there are more principles at work there than you think.

Let's play with an example. Let's say scientists come up with a plan to make the U.S. energy independent on a cost effective basis. The fuel source is sugar cane. Only a few (let's say six) southern states have the capability to grow appropriate sugar cane to supply the fuel.

Now, a competing system based on corn is already in place in twelve other states, but is only cost effective via federal subsidies. The economies of these states rely heavily on growing corn for this purpose, and instituting a plan based on sugar cane will set them back decades.

Should the senators of those twelve states vote and defeat the energy independence plan because in the eyes of their constituents, it's the wrong thing to do? Or do they act in the interests of "everyone" and vote yes?

 

[xj0hnx]

No... That's the point I was making. If what you want is local concerns being voiced at the federal level, you'd institute a direct democracy. The fact that the American system is not that implies that there are more principles at work there than you think.

No, it couldn't be a direct democracy because then the areas that have less people get screwed. In your example the people that grow sugars' representatives would work to get legislation passed to help them, and if the twelve corn growing reps felt it in their constituents interest could try to block it.

 

[Acanthus]

Bullshit. They don't get to vote, We The People do. Also in case you didn't know there are thousands of groups that will represent your wishes the same as "those evil corporations". They're called political action committees and I'm an active member of a few of them.

If you want your voice to be heard then do something about it. But stop with the corporations being all corporationy, it's a sign of ignorance.

and 70% of america cant pass a 7th grade science exam, let alone vote on economic and geopolitical issues. They just watch the propoganda and vote against "them dirty mexicans" while our jobs are shipped overseas, our freedoms revoked, and our highways are sold to foreigners...

The corporations can easily buy the votes of the americans who cant critically think... and well we are the most religious nation in the world....

 

[Patranus]

Depends on the office.

A member of the house should represent their constituents.
A member of the senate should represent their state.

Sadly the senate has failed to live up to its responsibility.

 

[yllus]

No, it couldn't be a direct democracy because then the areas that have less people get screwed.

What's the superior logic in uniting a set of people under one representative under as arbitrary a system as the section of land they happen to live upon? Why should people have the weight of their opinions diluted solely because more of them happen to live in one area than another?

In your example the people that grow sugars' representatives would work to get legislation passed to help them, and if the twelve corn growing reps felt it in their constituents interest could try to block it.

And this is optimal?