Is it wrong for politicians to "do anything" to get re-elected?

Staying “true to party lines” is completely wrong.

The politician’s duty is to reflect the wishes of his constituents. If they do not do so, they are failing in their job and need to be replaced.

We generally elect politicians (at least theoretically) to vote “in the best interests of the constituency”, keeping in mind that “the constituency is “the entire electorate” and not just “the folks who voted for me” or “those who agree with me”. Sometimes they have to even rise above “their local constituency” and consider “the nation”, “the world” or “the future”.

So we really need politicians to carefully weigh issues and decide what is best for the constituency (and it might be helpful to read polls to see what the constituency thinks on some issues—but it is awful to be poll-determined on every issue) and vote his own conscience.

Sometimes the game of politics requires trading a vote for an issue that doesn’t much matter, even if it goes against a stated ideal or promise, in an attempt to gain votes for or against issues that matter more. Judgment applies. Too bad it’s in such short supply, though.

After the votes on the Obama Healthcare Program, i expect to see a lot of new faces in Washington, next election. its rare, but some politicians do start their polictical career telling the truth, but are swayed by the D.C. regime by one form or another.

We need all new people in Washington. people we can believe and trust and will listen to the will of the people.

You are elected to represent the will of those who voted for you regardless of your opinions or party. If the stance of said people isn’t clear or is egregiously lacking in foresight or logic or ethics the results of your judgement and its public justification should be what determines your continued political future.

Yeah, that’s wrong.

Like a certain theoretical politician who protrayed himself as a moderate and is on a mission to break nearly every theoretical campaign promise he made.

Yes, it’s wrong. Especially if they do anything illegal.

As for the slightly different question you asked in the details section, I vote for politicians to exercise their brains using all of the knowledge before them on a particular issue and to vote the way they think is right. Not to be puppets to public opinion or they party line.

@marinelife Has your trust in the politicians you vote for to independently do the right thing been affirmed?

A politician can accomplish nothing unless he/she wins. With that in mind I do understand that they all face the choice of either campaigning on a nebulous platform or promising the Earth and stars.

Once elected a politician should not blindly follow the party line but should, for the most part, reflect the party’s ethos.

@Storms At times.

The elected official should represent the voice of his people even if it means voting against their party or running a bi-partisan pitched re-election campaign. It doesn’t happen often but you will also be hard pressed to see an elected official stay in office if he can’t get re-elected. Which is why so many Dems are opting out of campaigning for re-election as they recognize their party affiliation will doom them to a loss next election out which is a kiss of death for a political career.

@Seek_Kolinahr (or anyone else) So, just to play devil’s advocate, suppose you elect a democrat because you like his stance on reducing carbon emissions. Then popular opinion, judged by polls and town hall meetings, in your area shifts towards a “global warming isn’t real” opinion. Now an important vote comes up and the official you elected votes to not tax high volume carbon emitters. How would you feel in that, or any such similar example?

Or another example: how about if misinformation spreads, and you know it isn’t true because you have technical knowledge about the subject. However, the local or national media does an excellent job convincing the general public of the nonsense. Your elected official agrees with you, but popular opinion is telling him to vote otherwise. How could this situation be properly handled?

It seems if someone always voted the will of the people, they could never lose an election. Unless he/she votes as the will of the people would like, but one day the will of the people is strongly against something they were once for and they condemn the politician for his voting record. Considering the general public’s apparent short-term memory, this seems like it could happen.

Yes. It really defeats the point of representing a constituancy if you’ve got your own agenda. I understand they can’t do anything if they don’t win, but they’re not doing anything anyways.

Yes, it’s very wrong. If they attempt this voters should do everything to thwart their plans.

@cockswain Welcome to my world. Almost everything the politicians said about health care delivery in the U.S. during the recent months has been wrong. The “death panels” thing is a glaring example. According to the actual language of the bill, it stated that doctors would be reimbursed for having advanced planning discussions with patients. That’s it. Nothing about limiting/rationing care or pulling the plug on granny.

@mattbrowne @py_sue What I’m more trying to discuss is would it be considered “doing anything” to follow the popular opinion as it shifts around, regardless of party philosophy. What if it is totally necessary to raise taxes to reduce the deficit, but the popular opinion is to not raise taxes? Please check out the other hypothetical situations I wrote above too, if you don’t mind.

It’s kind of a “how should the ideal politician behave” question.

@cockswain Aha. Well then, I think a politican should represent it’s constituants’ best interests. I guess then it would mean popluar opinion. There are plenty of intellegent citizens that are aware of what they’re voting for.

Now we’re getting to heart of the topic I want to discuss. If the politician votes what he believes is in the best interests of his constituents with the best knowledge available, and let’s assume their is nothing corrupting that politician’s voting process, he may not vote with popular opinion. Popular opinion, frankly, is sometimes dumb or ignorant. However, the politician deciding, let’s even say knowing, what is best for the people and votes accordingly, could lose re-election. So, voting in the best interests of the people against popular opinion could result in losing, and voting the popular opinion could not be in the actual best interest of the people.

What should the politician do? Are they simply victims of circumstance?

Tricky, tricky. I guess that Portland, OR might have a good example.
We’re getting a new I-5 bridge. But to pay for it, state government would have to either increase taxes or put up toll booths on I-205 and the I-5 bridges. The I-5 bridge already has a reputation for congestion and a lot of people are worried over different things. It’s not a really popular idea their trying to execute, but they’re going ahead with it anyway. I guess that a 12 lane highway might be better than a 6 lane highway. It seems to be something politicians trying to sell to people. Maybe it’s like being a parent trying to get your kids to eat broccoli. I guess maybe the politician should take the public opinion into account, be fully aware of how this lesgislation would affect people, and find a balance. Not an easy thing.

Just in case anyone wants more information, Here’s a link to an article.