to what extent should politicians represent their constituents?

[spidey07]

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?



And this is optimal?

Because local issues affect The People directly. That's the whole basis for our government - local representation. Why do you think it's called "The House of Representatives?" Hell, why even have states at all? Let's just have washington DC rule us because you think it's a bad idea for people to have a voice in their own ruling.

You must not live in the US if you don't understand this. It's one of the very founding principles of our country. The house represents their district and the senate represents their state. These congressmen in turn then are to vote on everything with the understanding that the effects of it on their constituents comes first. Why do you think people are so pissed off at Washington? Because congress is doing the exact opposite - not listening to the majority of The People, the person that hires and fires them, telling them to stop.

 

[Fern]

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.

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.
-snip-

My understanding is that we have two elements in our (bicameral) legislative branch for a reason:

House members are elected for only a 2 year term. They are expected under this system to very strongly and directly represent their constituents. This body is designed to represent the will of the people in their district. This body also has far more members and there is more 'dilution' for any one district.

The senate has 6 year terms, therefore they are to large extent shielded from the passions about issues 'du jour' and meant to be a more deliberate body. And this body was designed to represent the interests of their respective state. Collectively, the interests of the states is the interest of the union.

Straight up 'democracy' is subject to current whims etc like the House. 'Rule of the mob'. There would be no 'check' in the legislature like the Senate was to perform.
--------------

IMO, a representative should be supporting the views of their constituents. A senator, should be taking a broader view.

So, I think the extent that you vote directly according to your constituents' preferences depends upon the office you hold. There will be times when a politician disagrees with his/her constituents, but House members are far closer to their constituents than a Senator can ever be (the House members represents far fewer people). So they should be able to pursuade their constituents of their view, and if not should likely lose re-election.

Fern

 

[yllus]

Because local issues affect The People directly. That's the whole basis for our government - local representation. Why do you think it's called "The House of Representatives?" Hell, why even have states at all? Let's just have washington DC rule us because you think it's a bad idea for people to have a voice in their own ruling.

The point is not that subtle but it continues to escape you.

Sure, it's easy to represent your state when its views line up with the majority. The question is what a representative should do if faced with the scenario I outlined earlier: Good for country, bad for my district. If all your House representatives do is parrot the views of the masses below them, you should consider cutting out the middleman.

Why do you think people are so pissed off at Washington? Because congress is doing the exact opposite - not listening to the majority of The People, the person that hires and fires them, telling them to stop.

In other words: It's not working. Sounds like the founding principles of your country might need some adjustment.

IMO, a representative should be supporting the views of their constituents. A senator, should be taking a broader view.

So, I think the extent that you vote directly according to your constituents' preferences depends upon the office you hold. There will be times when a politician disagrees with his/her constituents, but House members are far closer to their constituents than a Senator can ever be (the House members represents far fewer people). So they should be able to pursuade their constituents of their view, and if not should likely lose re-election.

Fern

I wonder what would be the result of lengthening the terms senators serve (possibly with a cap to avoid them serving for life) to say, ten years, and also lowering/reducing the responsibilities of your House reps - using technology to instead give the people they represent the ability to have a direct say. As I said above, it really doesn't look like the status quo is working very well.

 

[QuantumPion]

Representatives should in general vote the way they think is best, the people elect them based on agreeing with their general principles and judgement. However, they should most certainly not be voting against a super majority of their constituents for the sake of party politics.

 

[rudder]

They should not represent their constituents at all. They should make decisions and promote a public policy that will ultimately earn them the greatest return.

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081029/BUSINESS/302158245/1005

Just saying.