I am Changing the Subject
Do we expect elected officials to always vote the way their constituents prefer or do we elect people to represent us by using their judgement?
I fall mostly in the latter category. I vote for people who demonstrate a similarity with me in their opinions and I likely respond to their demonstrated understanding of the issues. Whenever I have been able to go to town hall meetings or a political speech I have gotten a much better sense of what a politician believes, how informed they are and how well they are able to articulate their positions.
I think it is an interesting question. Do you have a sense that the people you vote for who are eventually elected should pay you back by supporting your issues and let you down when they do not...or do you vote for people and expect them to develop their positions over time and vote the way they feel is correct, even if it disagrees with what you think?
I am not looking for rec's, just a discussion. Any takers?
I fall mostly in the latter category. I vote for people who demonstrate a similarity with me in their opinions and I likely respond to their demonstrated understanding of the issues. Whenever I have been able to go to town hall meetings or a political speech I have gotten a much better sense of what a politician believes, how informed they are and how well they are able to articulate their positions.
I think it is an interesting question. Do you have a sense that the people you vote for who are eventually elected should pay you back by supporting your issues and let you down when they do not...or do you vote for people and expect them to develop their positions over time and vote the way they feel is correct, even if it disagrees with what you think?
I am not looking for rec's, just a discussion. Any takers?
Advertisement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-representation/#PitFouVieRep
Elected officials are supposed to represent the views of the voters in a district that elected them. That's the reason candidates always sound like a broken record when they say that they will "fight for you" in Washington.
The entire conception of this country is based on the equal right of every voter to participate in the governing of the country.
September 16, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only care if they are smart, period.
Using that as a threshold, however, I am sometimes forced to leave blanks on my ballot or choose the lesser of two evils.
September 16, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean you would vote Republican if that candidate is twice as smart as a Democrat?
September 16, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
September 16, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fascinating to me.
I've always tried to think about what my priorities were and which candidate seemed most aligned with them and capable of staying focused on them while in office.
Just like hiring a lobbyist :-)
September 16, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know what you mean, L, and I think your question is fascinating. I wanted to give an unequivocal answer, which was difficult for me to do. The truth is, however, I have not lived long in places where my voting choices were in conflict with my ideology.
I have voted in Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, New Jersey, and New York. I can think of some super smart Republicans from New York and Ohio, but very few or none from KY, NJ, or VA. The Republicans in those 3 states are overwhelmingly (and overtly) corrupt, stupid, and sometimes even flat-out racist pigs. Perhaps it reflects an issue of voter apathy in those states, at least compared to NY and OH.
But your question makes me wonder if Republicans have gone steeply downhill in smarts over the last several decades. Maybe the entire country has.
In any case, it's worth thinking about. Thanks.
September 16, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, I live in Central IL, so more often than not the lesser of the two evils is a Republican (especially in state and local elections). I've voted for a dozen Republicans who are smart, capable, and don't always vote the party line.
Then we have yahoo Rep. Tim Johnson and Shimkus to the south who have GOT to go...
September 16, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
What if constituents' views are wrong?
If they believe funding for living wills is going to lead to geriatricide, and that is patently untrue - on the contrary protecting the patient's own preferences - should their rep vote such a measure down?
If they believe a country poses a threat of nuclear war, and it doesn't, should their rep vote for war on such a country?
If they believe deregulations in market X will stimulate the economy, but it won't, should their rep vote for deregulations?
Anyway, this question is moot as long as representatives neither vote the interests nor the views of their constituents, but rather those of special interests.
September 16, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What if the voters' views are wrong... what a great question! But who's to decide?
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/
September 16, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay Lalo. It's only a question for those who believe in facts. We can have a debate about the existence of facts another day...
September 16, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I look for officials who are intelligent, demonstrate critical thought, and can discuss complicated issues in a meaningful way (they don't oversimplify or result to slogans, but at the same time explain things clearly). THEN I look to see that they're capable of voting with their heads, not just with the party.
Since we can't be guaranteed that both names on the ballot fulfill the earlier qualities, if it's looking like the options are douche bag and turd sandwich, then I look to see who is supporting them and if their stances on issues I really care about line up with mine.
So, Norse - I'd prefer someone who is smarter than me and can give me a logical explanation if they didn't vote the way I wanted them to. If I'm smarter than they are, then I just want them to vote my views.
September 16, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
See...I like this discussion. It is interesting to me. If my "issue" is that I want to elect someone who will vote based on their informed opinion...are they not representing me?
Also....I think there is smart and political smart. I want both, but sheer I.Q. is not the total picture for me.
I definitely put party second to the individual..however, many of the Republicans where I live are out there.
September 16, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me, anyone can be politically smart and many are simply coached and groomed by party insiders. If you can train a dog, you can train a human. But I want evidence of real smarts or else the person is not fit for the job, in my opinion.
Let's take Joe Biden, and let's stick with Dems for this exercise.
In my opinion, Biden is neither smart enough nor savvy enough for the job of VP.
Therefore, does he represent me? No.
Was he the lesser of two evils? Yes.
September 16, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
To pick, from upthread, doesn't it make you look as if you pick politicans on the basis of personal projection?
September 16, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you be more specific, L? (I don't want to launch into an answer to a question you didn't ask.)
September 16, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by smart. First, it's subjective, second it's no predictor of efficiency. The more I think about your comment, the more I believe you define it to mean intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
But then Carter, regardless of his utterly stupid remark on racism today, is as intelligent as any president. And yet one of the most ineffective. Wouldn't you say?
September 16, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, you're brilliant. :-)
You're right, I do mean intelligence.
You're right, it is a subjective assessment. However, I didn't intend to give an objective answer, because I believe that we are incapable of being objective about the issue that Norseman raises. We all have fairly limited voting experiences that inform and skew our perceptions. We all project something onto our favorite candidates.
You're right that intelligence is no predictor of performance.
I agree that Carter is intelligent but was an ineffective president. But was Carter smarter than Eugene McCarthy (who ran as an independent in 1976)? I wonder.
I'm not sure there's a fail-proof way to elect people.
September 16, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's about Joe Biden "representing" me, I was simply incorporating Norseman's language from this question...
...into my answer. So Joe Biden may be informed (and he certainly has opinions!), but he is not smart enough for the job, in my book.
I was trying to use an example of a prominent well-informed and opinionated Democrat who might not in fact represent his "constituents" simply by virtue of his well-informed opinions. But maybe it doesn't work to combine Norseman's definitions and mine.
September 16, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
For myself, I select who I'm going to vote for based on what their stated policy positions are when they campaign. I fully expect them to promote, vote, and fight for this core. I view that as the issues that are "settled by the election". It's why they are sent to Washington.
This is why don't criticize Obama for not promoting Single Payer: he never implied that was his intent (although I question the strategic wisdom of shutting those who promote the idea out of the process from the outset - while empowering people who promoted ideas equally at odds with his campaign promises).
But there is an awful lot that comes up falling outside the issues and solutions that a politician addresses on the campaign trail. This is where judgment comes in. It's always a good thing to provide feedback, but ultimately they are elected to use their best judgment against many competing voices. How they do in this arena combined with how hard they fight for what they promised to get my vote in the first place determine if I will vote for them again.
September 16, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the answer is both. There's a line between representing your district and leading it. Sometimes our representatives walk the line and sometimes they find themselves on one or the other side of it. For the big social and human rights issues, or anything that requires a significant change in the way we do things, their job is to lead. Because mostly people don't like change until they've been led kicking and screaming into it. Especially when it's the right thing to do (like civil rights, gay marriage, health care), they have an obligation to protect all people, not just the interests of their district or the opinions of their constituents.
September 16, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be happy if they just weren't on the take from industry/lobbyists.
September 17, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Term limits?
September 18, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink