Which should be a Senator's primary concern?

[radcen]

Of the two, which should be a Senator's primary concern? (Note: Senators, not House of Representative)

1) Constituents
2) Country overall

 

[shlunka]

I think most would consider (3) Getting re-elected. To be the most important.

 

[jamesrage]

Of the two, which should be a Senator's primary concern? (Note: Senators, not House of Representative)

1) Constituents
2) Country overall

The answer should be obvious. Constituents.

 

[specklebang]

...and of course number 4 (which should be #1) to facilitate personal gain and share the wealth with friends and family. Why would millions be invested in these elections otherwise? It's just a form of capitalism, like becoming a movie star.

I think most would consider (3) Getting re-elected. To be the most important.

 

[Ray410]

The answer should be obvious. Constituents.

Exactly. That's why they're elected.

In the past few years, we've seen the enormous destruction that can occur when elected officials pretend their votes are far above their constituents and for the overall "good of the country."

Because of that elitist thinking, we now have a government that governs against the will of the people, a government that actually seems to dislike the people of the country.

 

[digsbe]

Their constituents. They are elected by the people in their state to represent the people in their state.

 

[GottaGo]

Actually, I view it as a multi-layer situation:

Primarily their constituents, but with a broader look at the impact at the entire country.

As much as I believe in the sovereignty of the States, we are part of a whole, and need to function with that consideration.

 

[radcen]

I've always thought that... in an ideal world... that Senators should be concerned with the overall good of the country first, and that Representatives should be concerned with their constituents first. To me, this was a balance that was struck back in the day when Representatives were popularly elected and Senators appointed by the states.

Today, now that Senators are popularly elected as well, I think that balance has been upset.

 

[Cephus]

Both. Primarily, of course, the good of their constituents, that's who elected them and sent them to Washington to represent them in the first place. It is your job to do what they want you to do. I also think they need to take into account the overall good of the nation and not do things that would harm the national economy, etc. However, we all know that no senators go to Washington to represent the interests of their constituents, they're there to garner wealth, connections and power for themselves.

 

[longknife]

The way the constitution was originally written - the state they were elected to represent at the federal level.

Their second responsibility was to review treaties to insure they do not hamper state's rights and to ratify them.
Their third was to ratify presidential nominations to certain federal posts.
Their last and final responsibility is to examine and review spending bills FROM THE HOUSE.

Sadly, we've gone way beyond those simple responsibilities.

 

[Ikari]

Of the two, which should be a Senator's primary concern? (Note: Senators, not House of Representative)

1) Constituents
2) Country overall

The desires and necessities of the State they represent.

 

[peepnklown]

The original role of the US Congress:
The Senate is elected by state legislatures and represents the state governments.
The House of Representatives is elected by the people and represents the people.

 

[earthworm]

No vote...
It has to be both...
We cannot have idiots for Senators, they MUST be able to think for themselves...

 

[earthworm]

Exactly. That's why they're elected.

In the past few years, we've seen the enormous destruction that can occur when elected officials pretend their votes are far above their constituents and for the overall "good of the country."

Because of that elitist thinking, we now have a government that governs against the will of the people, a government that actually seems to dislike the people of the country.

And if the people are idiots....or worse....and this does happen.....the senator should be their mouthpiece....????
That, IMO, makes him "useless", or worse...

 

[American]

I've always thought that... in an ideal world... that Senators should be concerned with the overall good of the country first, and that Representatives should be concerned with their constituents first. To me, this was a balance that was struck back in the day when Representatives were popularly elected and Senators appointed by the states.

Today, now that Senators are popularly elected as well, I think that balance has been upset.

The system looks stupid because of popular voting for senators. Originally the House represented the people while the Senate represented the states. The combined efforts of each representing his constituent would benefit the union.

 

[Cephus]

The system looks stupid because of popular voting for senators. Originally the House represented the people while the Senate represented the states. The combined efforts of each representing his constituent would benefit the union.

But now, all of them represent only themselves. That's the problem.

 

[radcen]

We cannot have idiots for Senators, they MUST be able to think for themselves...

Hoo boy, wouldn't that be an interesting thread. :mrgreen:

 

[Fiddytree]

The answer should be obvious. Constituents.

Depends. I think the Senate should tame the impulses of the masses, who are best represented at the House. Now, obviously, they should represent their constituents, as they represent their state. However, a Senator should be less pulled in by the imagination of the public.

 

[Fiddytree]

Exactly. That's why they're elected.

In the past few years, we've seen the enormous destruction that can occur when elected officials pretend their votes are far above their constituents and for the overall "good of the country."

Because of that elitist thinking, we now have a government that governs against the will of the people, a government that actually seems to dislike the people of the country.

That used to be a time-honored tradition. Elitism, which was part of conservative values, was considered good practice decades and centuries ago in this country. I think we could use a bit more of it, actually. We've overestimated the value of the public, giving into its populist appeals far too often.

Many Federalists felt as William Richardson Davie did: "I never have and I never will surrender my principles to the opinions of any man, or description of men, either in or out of power; and....I wish no man to vote for me, who is not willing to leave me free to pursue the good of my country according to the best of my judgment, without respect either to party men or party views."

Now, of course, times are different, and with additional democracy and party influence comes need to be shrewd to the interests of both. Many younger Federalists did this, but still thought that democracy was often vice. Nevertheless, some amount of elitism must be brought back to thought.