Elected Representatives Should Do What Constituents Want: True or False?
- Login to post comments
A WVOM caller last week took State Rep. Emily Cain to task for not doing what her constituents wanted her to do in voting for the tax reform bill.
The caller is wrong. Our system of government works this way: Citizens are supposed to understand how their government works, and their responsibilities and rights in making work. That's number one.
On Election Day - we are supposed to elect from our municipality, district, or state the persons we believe have the best experience and knowledge of governing, who best reflects our interests, to serve as our eyes and ears in Augusta and Washington, DC.
It is the job of State legislators (Senate and House) and Members of Congress (Senate and House) to use their best judgment when casting votes. Think about it. Any State legislator, any Member of Congress represents people whose position on any given issue is "Yes," "No," or "I don't care." It is impossible, as well as undesirable, for elected representatives to do what they're constituents want them to do.
Delegates agree to take a message from one group and deliver it to another group. That is, delegates do what their constituents want them to do. Example: Each colony had delegates to the Continental Congresses. When Members of that Congress were asked to voted Yea or Nay in support of the Declaration of Independence - the delegates voted how the legislative bodies in their respective colonies told them to vote.
We have at least two excellent checks-and-balances on our State legislators, Members of Congress, and the Governor. We can re-elect our or elect new people at regular intervals. And citizens must stay informed at least on key measures so we can know when our elected officials are being honest, when they're blowing smoke.
skf
I agree that elected representatives should vote their own mind and conscience.
Voters should cast their ballots for those people who best exemplify their own minds and consciences. Once elected, all bets are off.
One can politely complain or exhort, but the best remedy to a rogue representative is at the next ballot box.
In Washington's farewell address he explained this point well. He also called for recall elections.
Scott, that is only partly right. We elect folk to represent us...they are public SERVANTS...If an elected politician wanders from the views of his constituents too often then they no longer represent anyone but themselves. The founders did a variety of things to balance this tendency toward ego on our elected folk. They assumed the job would be part time and poorly paid. They also did not intend that the fellows in office would create a system where they have a vast and almost impossible to overcome advantage in elections. The idea was that a rep who wandered too far off the reservation would be removed. Today way over 90% of incumbents are returned because they set up the system to keep them in office regardless of behavior. The election is simply an inconvenience they must submit to every few years but that really seldom effects their time in office.
Remove special benefits of the incumbent and stop fixing districts in the incumbents favor. Stop earmarks and pork. The system is broken when the public at large shows a 30% approval of Congress but 90% are returned to office.
Our 'servants' represent no one but themselves....and everyone knows it.
So in other words republicans are out of luck in Maine , calliing does no good and I am convinced our rinos do not clear their phone mailbox ever .
I will continue to try and change things by voting against snowe and collins everytime they run .
I would rather have a known Rat in office .
I agree that the elected reprsentatives are entrusted to use their own judgement. Edmund Burke's Letter to the Voters of Bristol provided a convincing rationale. If a representative's understanding of an issue runs contrary to a majority of his constituents, honor and conscience obliges him to vote contrary to their views.
But I would add one proviso. Representatives of the people should state clearly DURING THE CAMPAIGN what their views are. If, for example, they feel that the government must take more of their constituents earnings, this should be made known before they take office.
JIMV -
re: The idea was that a rep who wandered too far off the reservation would be removed.
Yes, through frequent elections. I've never met a political candidate with too many campaign volunteers. The foundation of our representative government is a populace that understands how government works, and their rights/responsibility in making it work. When we can get that back in place I think we'll be in much better shape. Maybe even good shape. We cannot expect a nation of Apathists and Ignoramuses to make wise choices on Election Day.
skf
If a representative's understanding of an issue runs contrary to a majority of his constituents, honor and conscience obliges him to vote contrary to their views.
Now and again...not on every major issue. When a representatives real constituency is their fellow members in Congress and the media, then they are absolutely not acting IAW Burke's idealized view. In addition, his ideal existed at a time when it was assumed the representative, because of his location and job, would be better informed than his voters on any issue. We live in the world where our servants simply do not read the legislation and at any time on any issue a large number of the fellows constituents know FAR more about the issue than does the elected fellow in Washington. I would bet at least half a dozen AMG readers have actually read the Cap and Tax bill while no elected rep did or will.
Scott, the left has destroyed US education. The day when folk actually understand even what was intended by the Founders much less what they established is long gone and will never be seen again short of societal revolution. As the great philosopher Forest Gump once noted "stupid is as stupid does"....our elected class is elected by the clueless and as a result, is in-your-face stupid themselves. Now add ego and you have a system far removed from what the Founders intended.
A recall provision or term limits are needed to fix the mess and neither will be allowed by the folk affected.
JIMV -
If the only change is term limits - how does that make the system better? I fully agree with you re: our education system. But fixing it, or finding a viable alternative, is a must. We need to break the cycle of The Ignorant electing The Ignorant, don't we?
skf
Term limits prevents the folk in office from becoming so entrenched they cannot be removed regardless of their positions. For every good politician removed by the limit, the same limit gets rid of a score of hacks. There are lessons to be learned from Maine on the issue. Do not create something that simply lets the political hack move from government paid position to another government job. Make the term limit a limit on federal government paychecks and preclude lobbying post 'service' for at least a decade.
Education cannot be fixed. It is simply too late. When you drive around look at the number of cars with bumper stickers that say stuff like "Junior is an Honor Student". Now consider the folk you bump into every day, victims of this system. There is a disconnect between 'honor student' and junior actually knowing anything, and Juniors parents are very happy indeed to get juniors report card with its 'A's while never considering the performance needed to get that 'A' would have rated a 'C' 30 years ago. Everyone knows education sucks but thinks it sucks next door, not in their schools. To fix the problem one needs to confront it's cause...unions and poor teachers. As the solution to both is not giving either more money, the solution will never be found.
Societal revolution, an almost universal belief that education stinks and it IS the fault of educators, that government is broken and THEIR rep is responsible, and that there is no free lunch, even when THEY get their palms greased, is needed.
How likely is that.
I read an analogy to FDR yesterday. It went something like this....FDR didn't take 10%, instead he took 50% and then gave back 40%...same end result but a lot of folk got their palms greased, enough to keep FDR in office. That is the danger of today's proposals...steal enough and grease enough palms with the crumbs produces the opinion that the worse economy one creates can only be saved by the fellow dropping the crumbs....the 'safety net' idea.
It seems that the argument is shifting to the question of whether representative government, as commonly understood, is even possible any more. Assuming the average congressional IQ were 150 and they actually read the legislation, (and the Constitution they swear to uphold) the congressmen have taken on far more authority over our society then they can possibly exercise competently.
I think we could safely make that average congressional IQ around 80 ....some staffies might make triple digits, but the Congresscritters themselves...You know, Franken and once Joe Biden....really!
This is a great question, but one that cannot be answered ever. Let's take what happened in Lewiston this week - and the outrage by a few. Should we have asked our constituents and if so which ones? Do you really think polling the citizens of Lewiston beforehand would have felt less tainted? Less dirty? Or from another view, when i was campaigning, how many people asked only 1 question - and that was how I felt about the administrator. There were some then who wanted him gone - so do i now say i was only granting their wishes and listening to those constituents. The BEST an elected offical can hope for is that on most days half will be happy with the decision and half will not - if you don't beleive this, please list all the truly democratically elected officials you know of who were adorted by all members of the territory they served. That list would be small if not non-existent.
right now I'd settle for a truce, a cessation of hostilities from the legislators towards us 70 IQ types
I vote for people whom I think think like I do. I don't expect them to vote my way on every issue.
charlie
When constituent contacts are 10-1 on an issue, is there any question whcihc way a legiscritter SHOULD vote? Like on the Porkulus bill. The politburo has lost all touch with the man on the street.
I vote for people whom I think think like I do. I don't expect them to vote my way on every issue.
charlie
Wouldn't now and again be nice...just sort of accidentally like??
A post on another forum concerning the same question:
The elected official is no different than any other person you collectively hire to do work for you. It is like asking "Should the selected contractor for a group of people build what they hire him to do, build what he wants, or build what the government wants?" or "Should the hired attorney represent the group that hired him, represent a different groups interests, or represent the government?".
Freewolf46
Sounds like an easy answer to me....
Sadly most Legislators only show hostility towards you 70 IQ types because they know you to be their intellectual superiors.
"When a representatives real constituency is their fellow members in Congress . . . "
That addresses a real problem, Jim. The vast and effective fundraising machines of Congressional leadership (as led by Schumer in the Senate, for example, though the House might be a bettter case for us to consider, given the voting records of our RINOs in the Senate) raises a conflict of interest when it comes time to vote. Are the votes guided by interest (not dictates) of the people who elect them, or by the dictates and interests of the folks who fund their election? The way the rules are set up, election would naturally contribute to a majority. Re-election then becomes a carrot to advance the member's influence in committees.
That last point may be off base, given the lack of ego in officials dedicated to public service. *sarcasm light shining brightly*
Yes, the latitude to vote rightly, to represent their constituency with due (but not governing) consideration to the will of the electorate is what they are entusted with. But it would seem that the will of their party's leadership in either house is of far more importance to them than that of the people whose votes put them in office.
Nothing delights majority leaders more than having enough support from the opposition to allow them to permit members to vote against the party line, a priviliege they can then dispense to members whose voting records have left them perilously close to being booted when next they face the electorate, giving those members ammunition agains those who would accuse them of voting with ledership rather than the principles they espoused in their campaigns. It's one of the oldest tricks in the legislative leadership handbook.
- Login to post comments
You're correct Scott. We have a representative republic not mob rule. Elected officials, in the purest republicanism, make decisions and cast votes based on a number of factors, including but not limited too, constituent imput. Pure democracy has been tried in human history (Greece) and was unsustainable lasting merely one generation. Republicanism - or conservatisim if one wishes to define it in that term - at its core depends on this representative form of governance. It slows the hot emotion of the mob - we've moved away from that in Maine grooving governance right into the wheelhouse of the Democrats.