Weigh in, folks!

[johnstonmr]

One view is that voters should be electing the best, most forthcoming
individuals with the intelligence and judgment to cast votes that serve the
common good, equality-minded leaders who know enough about rights and
commerce to help shape a better nation and world.

Instead, many neo-conservatives want to make sure that their representatives
hate the same people they do, favor the same narrow business interests as
them, etc. No wonder they turn out to be liars, hypocrites and addicted to
pork-barrel spending.

Should representatives vote as the majority of their constituents want, or
should they represent the needs of their district? Are the two the same
thing, or are they different? If all we want is reps who vote exactly as we
would, then why bother with representative democracy; let's just go 100%
Athenian and everybody who cares can vote on every stupid thing that comes
along?

Comments?

Comments

My two cents' worth

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

Elected officials who simply vote exactly the way the majority of their constituents would vote do not and can not always represent the common good.

Let us take, for example, the many-faceted issue of civil rights. If the majority of voters would have shot down, say, women's suffrage, or inter-racial marriage, would it have served the common good, would it have been right to vote against those issues?

Does it serve the common good for our elected officials to put in place laws that prevent same-sex couples from adopting, simply because their constituents are prejudiced, bigoted or simply unaware of the true nature of the situation?

We as a people can not expect all voters to be well-educated on the ins and outs of every issue. Some people don't have access to the information; some people don't have the time; some people don't have the ability to understand; some people just done care, or refuse to see beyond their own narrow-minded opinions, regardless of the facts available to them. Because of this, the voters can not or will not provide input that truly reflects what is best for us as a state or nation, as a local or global community.

In theory, our elected officials are tasked with becoming well-educated on all of the issues at hand, and in theory they take on the job of enacting or removing laws based on what is best and fairest for the majority of the populace. If this isn't the case, then as you said, why not simply go back to a one-person-one-vote system for every single votable item that comes up? Oh - as long as the majority of voters agree that every voter should have the same input.

House and Senate?

[patimen.livejournal.com]

I always thought the idea was that Representatives should, well, represent their constituents while Senators should vote for what they think is best for the country.
Also, do you really believe this is a neo-con only phenomenon? That liberals and less "neo" conservatives always vote based on clear principles?
Finally, it seems both sides of the aisle joined together in ignoring their constituents in order to bail out Wall Street at taxpayer expense back in 2008. Not quite sure what principle was involved, but they definitely thought they knew better than us plebs.

Re: House and Senate?

[johnstonmr]

No, I think both sides of the aisle vote stupidly. However, my perception is that the more right-wing elements of the voting public are at least more open about wanting people to vote exactly like they would, with little seeming understanding of the fact that they have to represent ALL people, not just the ones who voted for them.

That said, I am aware that some liberals do the same thing; I'm ashamed of them, too.

[cedyeus.livejournal.com]

Due to the massive size of the united states, Direct representation is not possible. When districts consist of 400,000 people, there is no way that any single person can ever represent the diverse interests of those involved.
Therefore, we've evolved an interest-group based indirect representative form of government.
If the environment is important to you, you join the Sierra Club and CLCV. 2nd amendment fan, send your yearly dues to the NRA. In a profession, you join your union.

These entities wield tremendous power because of the "power" of their membership base. Prison Guards, Teachers, Trial Lawyers.... these are three of the most powerful groups of people in California, and each one has chosen to unite in "common interest" to make sure the government is looking out for them and their people.

Legislators listen to these people as a "shortcut" to determining the collective will of the people. Once they are in office. In order to get there, you still need to convince regular people to vote for you, which requires a level of support within the community you plan to represent.
Despite the fact that it pretty much costs only $250,000 for a seat in the California State Assembly, I've watched "outsiders" spend millions to try to win and fail, because they have no support from within the local community. It really is a cliched truism that elected officials care about the local community. From homeowners Association, to PTA, onto the School boards and city councils, it really is a progressive path of service.
Most of them are good people, way in over their head, as there is absolutely no way one can ever possibly be prepared to try to address the issues facing our country today. They succumb to the weight of the vested interests, and only a couple of times a generation do things get so bad that real change actually is brought forth. We're living in one of theses times, and after the bailout saved us from a Global Depression, we saw the resulting anger and if we're really lucky and Barney Frank has a heart attack, we just might see some changes that will prevent it from happening again.

[milescochran.livejournal.com]

My thoughts work from a basic assumption...

Americans are stupid. This is as a generalized group, specific people are not stupid but America as an aggregate is terribly ignorant.

If you believe the populace is by and large stupid then the elected officials are there to give the people what they need, not what they want. I don't care what most people want, most people watch American Idol and eat at McDonlads, these people are not really good at making decisions.

I realize that many people just shuddered, such is life. I don't trust the American Public as a whole to govern itself. I would love a world where social order could be a co-operative exercise but it's simply not possible.

A politician represents a particular constituency. They should therefore base their decisions on what serves their constituents. So when asked if they should vote for something that would help the state as a whole but hurt their district they should vote against it. The same for a state representative in the federal government.

For issues which do not directly impact their group then they should make a decision based on the idea of "what decision best matches with being a good person" Being a good person is subjective but that subjective answer is what the politician should base their decision on.

Hopefully this means that I will elect someone who best fits my values and so when they vote based on their values they will naturally be close to my own. this won't always be the case but that is the representative part of our democracy. Yes this means conservative areas should naturally vote in conservative people but if they vote in someone who is conservative fiscally and liberal socially, such is the way of representation. Fix it next year by not voting for them again.

No law is ever permanent, so no political decision should be of that great a concern to either the people or the politicians.

[patimen.livejournal.com]

Read Plato's "The Republic" lately? :)

How are these stupid people supposed to make good decisions about who to elect? Why wouldn't they just elect the person who promises them the biggest payout and then ignore past results? Or, as Michael says, vote for the person who most shares their prejudices?

People aren't stupid in the things that matter to them, they're stupid about things when there is no payoff for being smart (generally). And politics is the #1 area where being informed and smart has virtually no payoff. I find it entertaining and interesting, but I would never judge someone who didn't. People can be very good at their jobs and still suck at almost everything else.

What you get (IMHO), is that politics is the ultimate representation of human stupidity. Thus, my bias: get as much as possible out of the realm of politics and into something where people at least have SOME incentive to be smart.

[johnstonmr]

It's somewhat sad, given that Jefferson's idea for Public Education was that it should educate voters so that they could then use their "ultimate powers of society" wisely. In that, if nothing else (and I'm well aware there are other failures, thanks!), education has failed.