- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Who are our representatives responsible to?
Senators and Representatives.
Should they answer to their constituents? Should they bend to the will of the population in general? Should they do what they feel is "right"?
There are other examples in history, but let's go with the current political climate. Those on the left decry the "Tea Party's" efforts to thwart virtually everything the President and the Dems want to do. I don't think that's really disputable, but... so? If that is what their constituents want, then isn't it their job to do so?
And at what point does representing one's own constituents become just counter-productive?
Who are our representatives responsible to?
Senators and Representatives.
Should they answer to their constituents? Should they bend to the will of the population in general? Should they do what they feel is "right"?
There are other examples in history, but let's go with the current political climate. Those on the left decry the "Tea Party's" efforts to thwart virtually everything the President and the Dems want to do. I don't think that's really disputable, but... so? If that is what their constituents want, then isn't it their job to do so?
And at what point does representing one's own constituents become just counter-productive?
I've always felt it is a combination of what the constituents want and what they think is right. Most times they should be what your constituents voted for, but sometimes judgment calls are the right calls. Granted for this to apply though it requires Congress to not be whining and acting like five year olds.
Good idea for a thread.
In general I think politicians should do what they feel is right. They should run on their own beliefs, and if elected then act on them. For situations that arise while they're in office they should generally do what they think is best and face the voters for those choices in the next election. Perhaps if their own belief goes against a clear overwhelming majority of their constituents they should heed them, but in general I don't think politicians should be constantly trying to figure out what the slight majority of their constituents want against their own beliefs in order to position themselves for re-election. Rather the politicians should stand up for what they believe in and then face the public for re-election.
our representatives are suppose to represent the people that elect them, and do their bidding....that is why the house was created a democracy, of direct election.
my representative does not present you, of your beliefs, and he is not elected to do his own thing., that is also why he has a 2 year term, to keep him close to the people he represents
our representatives are suppose to represent the people that elect them, and do their bidding....that is why the house was created a democracy, of direct election.
my representative does not present you, or your beliefs, or other parts of this nation ,and he is not elected to do his own thing., that is also why he has a 2 year term, to keep him close to the people he represents.
He was elected to give voice to the people, but not attempt to parrot their beliefs on every issue. He should run on what he believes and if that is unacceptable the people should not vote for him. It is designed to give voice to the people, but if it was just having the representatives agree with his constituents on every issue, people would directly vote on House legislation.
If that is the case why even have a representative? We could just run a set of polls on every significant vote/issue and use the average of those polls to decide how a district should vote. If a representative shouldn't be an independent voice capable of making his or her own decisions on the critical issues of the day then we should do away with the thing altogether.
yes to give voice to the people who elect him, we do not have a national government.... its a union of states.... he runs on a platform of beliefs he feels represents the people of his district.
it would be impossible for the people to vote on every issue in the house, , they find it hard now to vote every 2 years.
the representatives were given 2 years terms for a reason, , becuase if any actions they take which are against the people who elected them, the founders believed it would still be fresh in the minds of the people, to throw them out of office.
when i elect someone to the house, i elect him becuase he takes a position as close to mind, as i can find........so your telling me, he can run on a platform pandering to me, and then when elected, i am suppose to be ok with it if he goes off into another direction, and just say......."he exercising his own decision"....thats not how it works.
I don't think that's what Sherman was saying. And it's not what I'm saying either. Politicians should run on what they believe and then act on it. The electorate should then vote for the candidate closest to their views.
the house in the representation of the people....the people's interest..
when i elect someone to the house, i elect him becuase he takes a position as close to mind, as i can find........so your telling me, he can run on a platform pandering to me, and then when elected, i am suppose to be ok with it if he goes off into another direction, and just say......."he exercising his own decision"....thats not how it works.
he is a representative of the people of his district, that why they elect him to do their bidding.
before the 17 amendment the senator was the representative of the state legislature of the state and did there bidding.
well the logical remedy i would think would be to oust this person from office the next time an election rolls around. Congressman only have a two year turn around time so you don't have to wait long if you feel your representative has not served the interests of your community.
Who are our representatives responsible to?
Senators and Representatives.
Should they answer to their constituents? Should they bend to the will of the population in general? Should they do what they feel is "right"?
There are other examples in history, but let's go with the current political climate. Those on the left decry the "Tea Party's" efforts to thwart virtually everything the President and the Dems want to do. I don't think that's really disputable, but... so? If that is what their constituents want, then isn't it their job to do so?
And at what point does representing one's own constituents become just counter-productive?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Who are our representatives responsible to?
Senators and Representatives.
Should they answer to their constituents? Should they bend to the will of the population in general? Should they do what they feel is "right"?
There are other examples in history, but let's go with the current political climate. Those on the left decry the "Tea Party's" efforts to thwart virtually everything the President and the Dems want to do. I don't think that's really disputable, but... so? If that is what their constituents want, then isn't it their job to do so?
And at what point does representing one's own constituents become just counter-productive?
I thought that was implied in "party".I had to vote "other" because you forgot the option for Satan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?