A Sea Of Red

In this republic the people democratically elect officials to represent us in government by way of voting yea or nay on bills and laws etc. That part is a given. But how exactly should they represent us? Should they:

A. Vote based on what the district they represent, wants. If 75% of the population in their district wants a bill to fix a dilapidated bridge he should vote for it despite that he is an anti-bridge politician.

or

B. Vote based on their own personal political beliefs. He campaigned on his anti-bridge opinions. He needs to stick with that, even if it is bad for the area he represents.

A is the most important. you represent the people. i would say that it shouldn't be that big of a deal because if you were to do what you thought was best and were wrong, then obviously you'd would be voted out the next term...unfortunately, people are dopes and vote straight party and reelect these morons...

I disagree. If a guy gets elected, he needs to stick with the positions he ran on. Unless it's extenuating circumstances. What if the the citizens want a bill that gives them a million dollars each? And it's tough for me to say because like a month ago some congressman in NY said he would vote for health care despite the fact that his district overwhelmingly didn't want it. He thought he knew what was best for them. And that's really what brought this question in my mind because I thought this guy was an idiot. Then after mulling it over, he DOES need to do what's best for them no matter what they think. However, what's best for them is certainly debatable. I think what's best for everybody is as little government as possible and learning to sink or swim. He was elected by his people on a different platform and should stick to that. It's their stupid fault for electing him.

ok, I'm getting killed on the poll.

Can anybody answering A tell me why we don't all just vote on things ourselves instead of having representatives do it?

LUconn wrote:I disagree. If a guy gets elected, he needs to stick with the positions he ran on. Unless it's extenuating circumstances. What if the the citizens want a bill that gives them a million dollars each? And it's tough for me to say because like a month ago some congressman in NY said he would vote for health care despite the fact that his district overwhelmingly didn't want it. He thought he knew what was best for them. And that's really what brought this question in my mind because I thought this guy was an idiot. Then after mulling it over, he DOES need to do what's best for them no matter what they think. However, what's best for them is certainly debatable. I think what's best for everybody is as little government as possible and learning to sink or swim. He was elected by his people on a different platform and should stick to that. It's their stupid fault for electing him.

a guy is voted in based off of his positions supposedly so his constituents should be supportive of his positions. so that doesn't make sense.

also, using a simple illustration like "giving everyone a million dollars", what if a positions he runs on proves to be the wrong decision. should he still support it because that was the "position he ran on?" like, my position is to build a dam on this river...well say the river drys up to a trickle....since he ran on the position of putting a dam up, based off of your convictions he ran on it, do it.

like i said, it really doesn't bother me. he can do what he wants...even if its not the popular choice among his constituents....if it doesn't work, he shoudl be voted out....when voting someone in, you voted to allow this person to be your voice...you've given up your voice for his...and if he doesn't do what you want, vote him out.

I said B. I live in Central VA, do you really want redneck inbred hillbillies being the reason why Representative A voted for something?

wow you are giving politicians quite the benefit of the doubt.

RubberMallet wrote:

LUconn wrote:I disagree. If a guy gets elected, he needs to stick with the positions he ran on. Unless it's extenuating circumstances. What if the the citizens want a bill that gives them a million dollars each? And it's tough for me to say because like a month ago some congressman in NY said he would vote for health care despite the fact that his district overwhelmingly didn't want it. He thought he knew what was best for them. And that's really what brought this question in my mind because I thought this guy was an idiot. Then after mulling it over, he DOES need to do what's best for them no matter what they think. However, what's best for them is certainly debatable. I think what's best for everybody is as little government as possible and learning to sink or swim. He was elected by his people on a different platform and should stick to that. It's their stupid fault for electing him.

a guy is voted in based off of his positions supposedly so his constituents should be supportive of his positions. so that doesn't make sense.

also, using a simple illustration like "giving everyone a million dollars", what if a positions he runs on proves to be the wrong decision. should he still support it because that was the "position he ran on?" like, my position is to build a dam on this river...well say the river drys up to a trickle....since he ran on the position of putting a dam up, based off of your convictions he ran on it, do it.

like i said, it really doesn't bother me. he can do what he wants...even if its not the popular choice among his constituents....if it doesn't work, he shoudl be voted out....when voting someone in, you voted to allow this person to be your voice...you've given up your voice for his...and if he doesn't do what you want, vote him out.

I think constituency can mean both his party base and everybody who that he represents in his district (all citizens not just those that agree with him). I meant the latter so they wouldn't necessarily agree with him. You have a point though with being wrong about an issue. I guess that's part of the "extenuating circumstances" I mentioned. Most issues aren't so cut and dry.

i'm talking about the district or voting community regardless of who they voted for...while their guy lost, this other guy still represents them. obviously there is no way to make everyone happy. your main objective is to make the majority of people happy. if you fail at that, you'll get voted out. if you vote yes on something 75% of your community wants you to vote no on, you hopefully, will not get reelected...thats how it works.

the problem is the the left and right are growing so far apart that people are still voting for incumbents instead of the the other guy because hes too conservative or too liberal...

but don't you think that's a huge cause of the insane amount of pork?

LUconn wrote:ok, I'm getting killed on the poll.

Can anybody answering A tell me why we don't all just vote on things ourselves instead of having representatives do it?

Because this country was set up as a representative republic rather than a democracy SPECIFICALLY to prevent mob rule.

I think the answer is B. If the person ran on B for election, his people know what they are getting. (Do you really want an elected official that would violate their own conscience b/c it would be the popular thing to do?) Either way, if the people don't like them, they will be gone the next election anyways. It is up to the people to elect representatives who's morals most closely represent their own.

matshark wrote:Either way, if the people don't like them, they will be gone the next election anyways.

I'm in danger of hijacking my own thread here but I believe that this country has gotten to the place where this is not true. It's a combination of voluntary ignorance, and a culture that can support a channel like E!. In other words most of the time it's similar to a 5th grade class election/popularity contest. Term limits is the answer, and I think the reason why Virginia governors tend to be very successful. It's one of the few things I am in favor of despite that I think the idea is contrary to what our founders had in mind.

LUconn wrote:but don't you think that's a huge cause of the insane amount of pork?

Traditional "pork" spending is probably more or less under control. $29 billion (in 2006) may sound like a lot, but it is only 1% of the total budget. So the adjective "insane" is a bit much. Use that to describe the defense budget (approx. 20-40% depending on what gets put into it; those estimates do not cover past military which is around 15%).

Otherwise, having a pure democracy would be ineffective. You certainly wouldn't want everyone to vote on every issue (or those who would actually vote). The representative and electoral models has a lot of carryover from the idea that the masses are not smart enough to make intelligent choices. A representative is ultimately judged by his/her district at time periods far enough apart to keep away from hoi polloi fickleness and close enough to keep the masses from revolting. It is probably why voters place so much importance on perceived character during elections.

LUconn wrote: In other words most of the time it's similar to a 5th grade class election/popularity contest.

It's been like that since Andrew Jackson (1829)

LUconn wrote:

matshark wrote:Either way, if the people don't like them, they will be gone the next election anyways.

I'm in danger of hijacking my own thread here but I believe that this country has gotten to the place where this is not true. It's a combination of voluntary ignorance, and a culture that can support a channel like E!. In other words most of the time it's similar to a 5th grade class election/popularity contest. Term limits is the answer, and I think the reason why Virginia governors tend to be very successful. It's one of the few things I am in favor of despite that I think the idea is contrary to what our founders had in mind.

you are correct....congress approval ratings were at like 10% yet last november, the incumbent won 75% of the time during reelections....people are dumb they deserve what they get.

Simon Wilder: You asked the question, sir, now let me answer it. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed. The beauty of the Constitution is that it makes no set law other than faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.
Proffesor Pitkannan: Faith in the wisdom of the people is exactly what makes the Constitution incomplete and crude.
Simon Wilder: Crude? No, sir. Our "founding parents" were pompous, white, middle-aged farmers, but they were also great men. Because they knew one thing that all great men should know: that they didn't know everything. Sure, they'd make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them. The president is not an "elected king," no matter how many bombs he can drop. Because the "crude" Constitution doesn't trust him. He's just a bum, okay Mr. Pitkannan? He's just a bum.

There are really two schools of thought here.

Let's take the bridge example. I live in Hampton Roads, and every one who has ever driven around Tidewater knows how terrible the traffic around here is. The Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel is routinely jammed (on July 2nd, it was shut down for EIGHT HOURS in one direction, and the only other way into the area had a 20-mile backup. Yes, 20 miles.)

It was fine when only 6,000 cars went across it every day; now, almost 90,000. That's 15 times more traffic. Clearly, you need another bridge. Or at least, to triple the amount of lanes available to motorists.

The problem is, there really is a blurry distinction between 'pork' projects (a congressman's pet project) and something your districts desperately need. A necessary project, to one district, is pork to another. Look at the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere'. The country blasted that thing as a waste; yet Alaska pols thought otherwise.

As for the actual question, ideally, your political convictions should align with those of your constituency. Otherwise, they wouldn't elect you. As for the "you can dump them next election", that's baloney. The truth is, the way congressional districts are divided, 95% of them aren't competitive.

GoUNCA wrote:

LUconn wrote: In other words most of the time it's similar to a 5th grade class election/popularity contest.

It's been like that since Andrew Jackson (1829)

Even before that. Although I think we just elected our first American Idol president.

LUconn wrote:

matshark wrote:Either way, if the people don't like them, they will be gone the next election anyways.

I'm in danger of hijacking my own thread here but I believe that this country has gotten to the place where this is not true. It's a combination of voluntary ignorance, and a culture that can support a channel like E!. In other words most of the time it's similar to a 5th grade class election/popularity contest. Term limits is the answer, and I think the reason why Virginia governors tend to be very successful. It's one of the few things I am in favor of despite that I think the idea is contrary to what our founders had in mind.

Our founders largely opposed term limits because they figured that a representative who did not have to subject himself to the wills of the people (as in, someone in the last few years / months of their term) would make bad / selfish decisions.

Of course, our founders didn't want our President to be paid a salary, because they didn't want people to by vying for the job because they wanted the money... And last year, billions were spent so one man could make $400,000.

ok, everyone forget I used the word "constituency". I think it has more than one meaning. Replace it with "citizens of their district". I'll edit the first post accordingly.

Liberty4Life wrote:There are really two schools of thought here.

Let's take the bridge example. I live in Hampton Roads, and every one who has ever driven around Tidewater knows how terrible the traffic around here is. The Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel is routinely jammed (on July 2nd, it was shut down for EIGHT HOURS in one direction, and the only other way into the area had a 20-mile backup. Yes, 20 miles.)

It was fine when only 6,000 cars went across it every day; now, almost 90,000. That's 15 times more traffic. Clearly, you need another bridge. Or at least, to triple the amount of lanes available to motorists.

The problem is, there really is a blurry distinction between 'pork' projects (a congressman's pet project) and something your districts desperately need. A necessary project, to one district, is pork to another. Look at the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere'. The country blasted that thing as a waste; yet Alaska pols thought otherwise.

I'm not really sure where the "schools of thought" are in there. You seem to be saying one "school of thought" is that the project is needed by many people thus worth spending the money, while the other "school" is that it isn't needed by many people and is thus not worthy of the money. Sounds more like the two options when it comes to spending, you do or you don't.

"Pork" spending is usually meant as earmarks, but a more widely accepted definition is "a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures." The second definition covers more spending than just "earmarks." So there really isn't a blurry distinction.

RubberMallet wrote:wow you are giving politicians quite the benefit of the doubt.

They deserve more than the "constituency" when they keep voting in the same people they disapprove of. Wouldn't you be questioning the intelligence of someone if they consistently complained and disapproved of a restaurant (I'm including fast-food here for sake of simplicity) like McDonalds, for example, yet when it comes time to eat at a restaurant they choose McDonald's everytime? It's the same here, people disapprove of someone yet can't voting for them. It makes no logical sense at all.

GoUNCA wrote:

Liberty4Life wrote:There are really two schools of thought here.

Let's take the bridge example. I live in Hampton Roads, and every one who has ever driven around Tidewater knows how terrible the traffic around here is. The Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel is routinely jammed (on July 2nd, it was shut down for EIGHT HOURS in one direction, and the only other way into the area had a 20-mile backup. Yes, 20 miles.)

It was fine when only 6,000 cars went across it every day; now, almost 90,000. That's 15 times more traffic. Clearly, you need another bridge. Or at least, to triple the amount of lanes available to motorists.

The problem is, there really is a blurry distinction between 'pork' projects (a congressman's pet project) and something your districts desperately need. A necessary project, to one district, is pork to another. Look at the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere'. The country blasted that thing as a waste; yet Alaska pols thought otherwise.

I'm not really sure where the "schools of thought" are in there.

Yeah, you're right. That's what happens when you start typing a post, get up to go to the bathroom, come back in a half hour and try to finish off what you started. It's a little jittery.

flamesbball84 wrote:I said B. I live in Central VA, do you really want redneck inbred hillbillies being the reason why Representative A voted for something?

I'll definitely take the hillbilly over Rep. A.

I chose A.

I don't have a (very) long explanation. I just think that's how it should work. Every time I hear someone media refer to "leaders in Washington" it sends me into a rage. I feel like our country is in the shape we're in because we're content to let politicians lead instead of leading ourselves. I feel like, ideally, people would be educated, informed and willing to participate in governing themselves. So, for me, the A choice best fits with that.

I can see both sides. That's just where I land.