Should a political representative use his vote to represent the people or vote what he believes is right and best?

I believe we hire them to vote as they think best, not to be driven by polls.

However, I think they should vote the way I tell them to,

In general if they have told us they will vote a certain way, they should do so. If other cases or more complex ones, we are trusting them to use their best judgment in representing us, which means that they should listen to what their constituents say in addition to all the other things they consider in making a decision, but not listen solely to what their constituents say.

@Snarp So do you find it disingenuous if Harold Ford was against gay marriage previously, but now is for it? The Dems in TN are different than the Dems in NY.

@JLeslie I expect it is craven pandering and I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.

I’d like to think that the people in Congress have more information available than I do, have more time and staff to thoroughly examine legislation (I’ve never in my life read an entire bill), are better aware of the wider repercussions of legislation, etc. So I don’t necessarily think that I am in a better position than they are to judge the merits of a bill.

However, I also understand that they don’t always act based on the merits of a bill. They’re also subject to their own biases and personal interests, as well as political pressures.

So, my complicated answer is that I want my representatives to use the resources available to them to vote for the good bills and sink the stinkers. I’ll let them know what I think, not with the expectation that they should do as I say, but just to let them know I’m paying attention.

Have always believed the congressman/woman represents those who elected them, therefore, they must vote for those who elected them. If they go against the voters, why elect them?

I think the responsibility of an elected official is to be honest about their views and voting intentions before they are elected. Once they are elected they should vote their conscience. We get a chance at the end of their term to decide if they should keep representing us. All I ask of politicians is to do what they honestly believe is right. If I don’t agree, I won’t vote for them.

@snarp Do you feel the same about Mitt Romney? From what I understand he was pro-choice until he ran on the national scene. When I first heard this during the presidential run, I was annoyed and dissappointed.

With Harold Ford, I think he probably was pro gay marriage all along, but in TN a large portions of the Dems are black and religious. So they actually are more in line with the republicans on gay marriage. It pisses me off to no end, and that Obama is against it too, because for minorities to not understand it is a matter of civil rights and equality is beyond me.

I think the same of Romney. I feel like he is probably most definitely pro-life for himself and his family, but as a religious minority maybe he gets that not everyone sees it the same way. Although, I never heard him speak on the subject. Anyway, I think he was genuine when he was pro-choice, but easily can say he is pro-life, even though it saddens me that he seemingly changed for the party.

What’s right and best.

I think that we know what we know about their positions and how they have conducted themselves in the past, and that we are voting them in to do what they think is best.

Polls, letters, and phone calls are not necessarily reflective of what every voter’s opinion is or event he majority. Why should the representative be swayed by only the small minority who bother to contact them?

he/she is a “representative” aka – he/she represents the people.

All politicians represent some group of people in one way or another. But if you get up to a high enough position in politics I think it is absolutely ridiculous to act based on your personal opinions over the views of a majority of the American people.

A public servant is just that, a servant. Our servents that I can fire, if we so choose.

if you are interested in what your representatives are doing: http://www.opencongress.org/

Our local NPR station regularly does “man on the street” interviews about current political topics, and I’m so often stunned by how shallow the analysis is of most people on the issues. The average person just reacts from the gut, based on snippets of rumor they’ve heard here and there and guided by their ideology of choice. The idea that a congressman should base his actions on the net result of all these ill-considered opinions terrifies me.

Something tells me that if Harold Ford came out for gay marriage in TN, there’d be sniper fire involved, so he stood for what he could get away with and keep his head. That’s just the political reality for that corner of the world. No wonder he’s coming up here. That guy had a hell of a tough time down in TN during his last campaign. With all the smears about his sex life and the insinuations that he was “after” white women, shit, I’d shake the Tennessee dust from my sandals, too, and keep stepping.

He or she should represent the people – such is the nature of republics and his obligation as elected by the people.

There are two competing theories of representative democracy that illustrate just this tension: delegates versus trustees. In the first, delegates are elected to represent the wishes of the people, while in the second, trustees are expected to have the autonomy to make independent decisions based on their own knowledge.

I think that there is some middle ground that can and should be found between these two models, but that it’s all a moot point if the representatives are just firmly in the pockets of corporate lobbyists.

Great question and I’ve marked it as such. I think that since the whole point of electing someone is because they’re supposed to represent your interests, then I think they should do just that and represent us. But how often does that happen. Most ( but not all) politicians seem to just say what they think we want to hear to get elected and then just do whatever the hell they want.

Just look at Obama, during his campaign he promised to bring the troops back home, but one of his first acts as President was to send thousands more to Afghanistan. So unless Obama’s home is Afghanistan, that was just another empty campaign promise.

Fabulous question. Personally, I think they should do a thorough analysis and come to an educated, well-formulated and well-backed-up answer. Part of their analysis should consider the demographics and views/beliefs of their constituency.

@Harp The people in Congress definitely don’t thoroughly examine legislation. They probably don’t have the time, or the inclination to do so. A friend of mine works for someone in the House, and said that it’s mostly the staff who write the bills. We decided to blame my friend personally for the health care fiasco. :)

That being said, I think representatives should represent the people. Sure, the public’s opinion may be shallow, but I’d rather have Congresspeople represent me than huge corporations.

@Dr_Dredd Sadly, I think huge corporations have been wildly successful at dictating public opinion. Even though until now they haven’t been able to overtly write policy, they have proven over and over again that they can write public opinion. The public at large has become the voting apparatus for the American corporation.

Yeah, it’s unfortunate. And Citizens United v. F.E.C. definitely did not help matters.

In Obama’s speech he asked for all lobbyists and congressman to be willing to put on the internet when they have met with each other, or something like that.