The Role of a Legislator

This is something that's been on my mind for awhile, so I figured I'd post my query and see what you guys think.

The question is: Should our elected representatives vote based off their personal belief of whether they think something is right or wrong, or should they vote based off what their constituents are saying?

Some things to consider: What exactly does it mean to be a representative (since this is a Republic)? Does it mean representing the sentiment of those you're working for or does it mean representing those constituents by voting according to your beliefs (since after all, they did vote you in based off, among many things, your personal record)?

The reason I ask is because I've seen people on both sides of the political aisle criticize legislators for leaning towards one of these philosophies. When someone bases a vote off his personal belief, he is criticized for not listening to the people, for being "out of touch." But when someone bases a vote off popular sentiment, he is criticized for just listening to the polls and only being interested in being re-elected.

So, let's hear what you think. What would you prefer from our elected representatives (this doesn't have to apply only to the legislative branch; the same goes for the executive): someone who governs according to principle or someone who governs according to constituent desire?

Good post!

MDanel93 wrote:The question is: Should our elected representatives vote based off their personal belief of whether they think something is right or wrong, or should they vote based off what their constituents are saying?

It depends on the issue (the vote at hand). Some issues/votes are very gov't related that many constituents don't know how to actually go on that issue (like deep defense issues/votes). Then, imo, it should be up to the legislator to vote according to his belief or the constitutionality of the vote itself.

But ultimately, they should be doing the bidding of their constituents. They voted them into office to represent them. Even if he's of the opposite party but the majority of their constituents want him to vote this way or that way, he should abide by what we tell them.

MDanel93 wrote:Some things to consider: What exactly does it mean to be a representative (since this is a Republic)? Does it mean representing the sentiment of those you're working for or does it mean representing those constituents by voting according to your beliefs (since after all, they did vote you in based off, among many things, your personal record)?

Both.

MDanel93 wrote:The reason I ask is because I've seen people on both sides of the political aisle criticize legislators for leaning towards one of these philosophies. When someone bases a vote off his personal belief, he is criticized for not listening to the people, for being "out of touch." But when someone bases a vote off popular sentiment, he is criticized for just listening to the polls and only being interested in being re-elected.

Voting by popular sentiment is no concern to those who get mad. If the majority of people in my district said NO to the health care bill, then my representative should vote according to what we want, not the ones who whine. That goes for both ideologies. Both of my senators are liberal Democrats (Al Franken & Amy Klobuchar) and i actually expect them to ignore their conservative constituents.

MDanel93 wrote:So, let's hear what you think. What would you prefer from our elected representatives (this doesn't have to apply only to the legislative branch; the same goes for the executive): someone who governs according to principle or someone who governs according to constituent desire?

Governs to principle and the constitution. Constitution comes first.

I wanted to add;

I've heard many people say that we should ignore the constitution in regards to things that benefit the people. The health care bill specifically. Bubblebliss said something to me to that effect. I say that if it's found unconstitutional by the USSC, then it's up to the congress to pass a constitutional amendment to make universal health care a constitutional reality. That's how we do things here. Not by mob (majority) rules but by constitutional adherence and amendments.

Thanks for that response, Tex. Just to clear something up, though, this question wasn't intended to be a debate on constitutionality. To be more clear, let's say for the sake of argument, that the Senator who votes according to personal belief and the Senator who votes according to constituent desire are both voting within the realm of something that is constitutional either way.

MDanel93 wrote:Thanks for that response, Tex. Just to clear something up, though, this question wasn't intended to be a debate on constitutionality. To be more clear, let's say for the sake of argument, that the Senator who votes according to personal belief and the Senator who votes according to constituent desire are both voting within the realm of something that is constitutional either way.

This is true to a point. But if a majority of constituents want him/her to vote for something that may be unconstitutional, then it's in his/her best interest to vote no on that basis alone.

I prefer representatives to voe with the wishes of his/her constituency. It pisses me off when it's a majority that want a NO vote but the rep/senator is of the opposite thinking and ignores it. That really irks me to no end.

MDanel93 wrote:This is something that's been on my mind for awhile, so I figured I'd post my query and see what you guys think.

The question is: Should our elected representatives vote based off their personal belief of whether they think something is right or wrong, or should they vote based off what their constituents are saying?

Some things to consider: What exactly does it mean to be a representative (since this is a Republic)? Does it mean representing the sentiment of those you're working for or does it mean representing those constituents by voting according to your beliefs (since after all, they did vote you in based off, among many things, your personal record)?

The reason I ask is because I've seen people on both sides of the political aisle criticize legislators for leaning towards one of these philosophies. When someone bases a vote off his personal belief, he is criticized for not listening to the people, for being "out of touch." But when someone bases a vote off popular sentiment, he is criticized for just listening to the polls and only being interested in being re-elected.

So, let's hear what you think. What would you prefer from our elected representatives (this doesn't have to apply only to the legislative branch; the same goes for the executive): someone who governs according to principle or someone who governs according to constituent desire?

This is an outstanding question MDanel; and it has, as I see it, a relatively simple answer. There are only two things to consider here; are the constituent's desires constitutionally permissible, and is the representative's personal beliefs constitutionally permissible?

In other words, any given representative might have his constituents clamoring to vote for a measure that is clearly not within the governments enumerated powers as set forth in the constitution. If this representative is taking his oath of office seriously, he must obviously vote against his constituents desires for their own good. On the other hand, we might have a constituency clamoring for their representative to take a position against a measure that is clearly not within the governments enumerated powers as set forth in the constitution, and if that representative's personal beliefs say that he/she should vote for it and then does, they have betrayed their oath of office and their constituents.

It is all about any given representative faithfully executing their duties in accordance with their oath of office. Constituent desires are fickle things and subject to radical swings given any number of factors. It is the representative's job to see that these desires are fairly represented within the confines of the constitution and the law of the land. It is why we are a constitutional republic and not a naked democracy, which is simply mob rule.

I hope this answers your question. And please feel free to ask more like this!

In a country without a writtern constitution (or at least, an evolving constitution that comes in many documents where the spirit and not the wording are most important to society) I think there has to be a good balance slightly tipped in favour of the constituents. After all, they are duly elected as the Parliamentary representative of that geographical area and most represent their views and values at the national government.

Too often, our MPs avoid difficult Common's debates and voting on bills by either abstaining or not turning up on the day of the vote (the process of beginning making bills into law), and that is something the new government intends to change.

That sounds like some of our legislators.... not there to vote or abstaining. I've seen major legislation getting voted on and no shows by congress-critters (from both parties). A damn shame.