- 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
For the most part this is how I believe it should be. The only exception I would make is that I think the US Senate should think and act more from the country's needs standpoint, and is why I think the Senate was originally picked by the states and not the people, while the House of Representatives takes the people's (read: constituents) interests at heart.Allow me to answer the question from practical experience. My job is chief of staff for a state representative in Michigan. We have been here for two terms and will be term limited after three.
It is the view of the Rep that he works for the constitutients who elected him to the job and is their servant. We have an open door policy in Lansing and any person can come in to make their thoughts known on any issue. He does give extra credence to the views of actual constituents - more if they show up on the past voters rolls. We keep a record of calls or letters on a particular issue and that carries weight - but does not always decide his vote if other relevant information outweighs those opinions.
It has been our experience that people want a rep who works hard for the best interests of the district. If you do not vote the way they desired, most will accept a reasonable explaination as to why.
Couple questions:
1) Has your representative ever felt they had to go a route different from the people's wishes? I mean, just because the people want something doesn't always mean that that is wise, or even truly in the people's best interests.
2) You mention extra credence given for specific forms of contact. How would you rate the following? In-person, individual written letter, phone call, e-mail, obvious organized mass mailing. I have been told by some that all forms of contact are said to be equal, but that's not really the case. The ones where more effort is taken are generally given more weight, as it is presumed the issue meant more to the person who took the time to make the effort.
3) Do you have a small collection of known "gadflys" that routinely complain about anything and everything all the time?
They should vote based on what they think is right, frankly most Americans too stupid to have intelligent opinions about the issues that the government deals with and even those that have semi-intelligent opinions don't have one for absolutely every issue and problem.
Any Congressman who wants to be a good Congressman would employ a whole staff of experts on the wide varity of issues that he has to vote on, average citizens don't have that kind expertise at their finger tips over even the education to understand it if they did. That way he can have the best information, the best analysis, to make the best choice.
the founders state that republican government is the highest form of government, and the people have to be educated to keep it, and when they are no longer educated they will lose their form of government, and turn to lower forms of government...like democracy.
2) If I were a representative, I'd tend to put little to no weight in duplicate forms cards and letters.1 - we are in the middle of something approaching that right now. I cannot say more right now but will post on this in the future.
2 - All forms of contact are important and I could not rate them in terms of a priority. I would say that as long as a contact appears to be genuine - the true feelings or opinion of a constituent - it is held as important regardless if it is in person or in writing or in the form of a phone call. Organized mass mailings carry lesser weight if it is all duplicate cards or from letters.
3- We do have a few very persistent people with lots of special needs but every office does and you just go with it and try to do your best but limit the time you put in to them at the same time so as to now cheat others..
I hope that helps and will answer #1 more in detail over the coming weeks when I can say more.
This IS the liberal opinion of America.
You are one of those people, and hell so am I. You'll notice that I've never made comments about whether Obamacare is a good law or not, because I don't know because I haven't studied the issue throughly enough to form a good opinion. I also don't have opinions about 99% of the tax code because I don't know any of the details about 99% of it, me having an opinion about issues dealing would that wouldn't be smart.
If I was a congressman and had to vote on these issues, I'd make sure I had a staffer who was an expert and could give me a good briefing so I could understand the issue. Regular American citizens don't have that kind of resources.
I'm sorry if you feel insulted that I said most Americans don't know everything about every issue but that's a simple truth.
If I was a congressman and had to vote on these issues, I'd make sure I had a staffer who was an expert and could give me a good briefing so I could understand the issue. Regular American citizens don't have that kind of resources.
I'm sorry if you feel insulted that I said most Americans don't know everything about every issue but that's a simple truth.
which explains why the teachers' unions-a wing of the democratic party-are doing all they can do to dumb down the electorate
Poll: Who are our representatives responsible to?
Yeah, you never made comments blah blah blah.......Wiseone meme. Americans are stupid blah blah blah.....must control them for their own good. :roll:
In my view, representatives are responsible to the truth and the people who elected them. Initially, that would be the party representatives who primaried them into the election contest. Secondly, it would be the general electorate in the district where they ran and got elected. If the electorate properly vets the people they elect, there should be no surprises. Now, the people who didn't vote for the person can be rightly upset when the person acts and votes contrary to their beliefs, but not if the person acts and votes in the same manner as they had promised to do when seeking votes.
It's not my country, but it's always bothered me when watching American politics and elections that the media and talking heads always claim that a candidate tells one story about themselves to get the nomination and then another story about themselves to get elected in their district, state, or the country at large. This concept of "tacking to the middle" once you get the nomination is inherently dishonest and one of the main reasons why politicians are viewed as scum by so many people.
It may be noble naivette, but I'd much rather see a candidate speak the truth as he/she sees it and lose on that basis than to have a candidate tell the electorate what they want to hear and then go to Washington and do the opposite because "they're doing what they think is right" - no, what they're doing is being dishonest and that's why many get primaried out next time around.
I think you're right about part of it, but you seem to put too much faith in the ability of experts to advise Congressmen. First, experts are chosen for political loyalty above all, much as generals in banana republics are chosen for their loyalty rather than their actual ability to command troops in the field. Second, the advice given to Congressmen is only as useful as the weight they put on it. If what important constituencies want is of more interest to a Congressman than good expert advice, the expert is just talking to himself.
Finally, when legislating on various subjects, there are no experts greater than those actually involved in the subject, as in doing, rather than just thinking about it. For example, if you're going to regulate oil drilling, who do you get for expert advice? If you don't get oil drillers, then you aren't getting the best advice. But if you do get oil drillers, is it a conflict of interest? Ross Perot used to famously point out that when Hillary Clinton was putting together her health care plan, there were no doctors on her committee for fear of there being a conflict of interest. But without doctors' input, how useful is a health care plan likely to be?
Despite these problems, this is why we have representative government though. We pay people to immerse themselves in these issues because we don't have time to do it. Now if only these Congressmen would a) actually do their homework, and b) stay out of things they don't understand. Watching 70-year old men try to regulate the internet is hilarious to most of us, especially when they actually start talking about it in public: "you see, it runs on tubes." But most of the things they try to legislate on they don't know anything about, and often it would be better if they just left well enough alone.
I agree that's part of it. Really, it's a much more complex and stressful job than the average person is aware.I totally agree, what I described is how it should work, but obviously that's not really the case. Ignorant voters will drive Congressmen to do stupid things, its a real shame, although of course ultimately the voters must decide who will represent them but I don't think most voters have a realistic understanding of what it takes to accomplish what they want or what it looks like once they really accomplish it.
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?