re: How should a politician vote - conscience or constituency

Represent the people.

Not personal self service or interest.

quote:

---

Represent the people.

Not personal self service or interest.

---

you left out conscience, the whole point of thread tension.

do you really want senators to just take a poll to see how to vote?

quote:

---

Best representation of his/her constituency...

---

This.

This does not mean literally sticking a finger in one's mouth and gauging the temp of every decision, but generally speaking if a "representative" is voting in ways that are contrary to the wishes of the people they are "representing" than they are not much of a representative.

The counter may be that merely voting a person in gives them carte blanche to vote as they see fit, since voting them in can be seen as the population turning over their representation to that individual. But I think that's fairly cynical, and is usually espoused by representatives that desire going off the reservation and want to vote against the known will of their constituency.

In Cassidy's case, his vote was cast solely because he'd just been re-elected and he cynically decided that if he was going to run again voters will have forgotten this vote in 6 years. Had this vote taken place last summer, there is ZERO chance he votes to convict...as he would have been far more responsive to the wishes of the people he represented when they could more directly effect his future.

quote:

---

One would think the two would be the same.


This is the problem with career politicians. Yes?

---

This is the problem with continually electing narcissists. They think that they are always the most intelligent person in the room, therefore they are always correct and can decide what's best for their constituency, regardless of how the voters feel on an issue.
Name a bigger narcissist than Obama, Romney, McCain, and Cassidy. I'll wait.

They are called representatives for a reason.

If it's conscience, then we are doing our campaigns all wrong.

Some issues are more evenly divided but this Cassidy thing was a joke.

There is zero doubt how his voters felt about the impeachment constitutionally and on the merits.

This lack of representation is how you get Trump as President once and again.

Cassidy didn't damage Trump, he strengthened him.

Politicians aren't very smart either.

The prompt was intended to be very specific. This wouldn't be an issue that was campaigned on or an issue on which the politician already had a well known opinion. And the politician would be voting his conscience and doing what he thought was best for LA, not for any other reason.


If it is by constituency, is the politician supposed to send out a survey every week breaking down what is on the docket and voting based on majority responses from the survey? Does he put a poll into the field every week?

Was he voted into office to do what he thinks is best for LA or to do what a majority of Louisianans think is best for LA? Because no matter who is elected, there is going to be an issue that arises where those two things aren't the same.


I'm of the mind that once you get voted into office, it's all on you. It's your name on the vote for all of eternity. The people trusted you when they voted for you, and you get to vote as you see fit. The politician should be the most informed about what is on the docket and how that impacts LA. He should never vote based on special interest or to score political points. He should vote with LA's best interest in mind and for what he truly believes is the right thing.

If the majority of the constituency doesn't approve of his voting record, they can challenge him in the next election.

Before the 15th amendment, the Senate was merely a messenger of the state. If it were up to me the 15th would be abolished and the Senate would go back to the state. I can't comment on the purpose of the Senate now. They do the same thing as the Representatives now.

The Representatives do as their title implies

If I were in the Senate or Representatives, I would hold meetings or email on how to vote. I've often wondered why they don't involve their constituents. I think the only time a candidate should include party is the presidency just to ensure they would act accordingly.

quote:

---

If I were in the Senate or Representatives, I would hold meetings or email on how to vote. I've often wondered why they don't involve their constituents.

---

Because 99% of their constituents lack enough knowledge to form a coherent opinion on 99% of the issues that arise in Congress.

quote:

---

If it is by constituency, is the politician supposed to send out a survey every week breaking down what is on the docket and voting based on majority responses from the survey? Does he put a poll into the field every week?

---

Are you imagining a situation where a Senator is on a theoretical island on which they have no idea what the desires are of their constituency?

In the case of Cassidy, there was no need for any of these things, as it was quite clear based on his actions in the press he was being hounded by his constituency to not vote for conviction. He completely understood the will of the people and chose to ignore it. This was not a case of him being uninformed as to their desires, just unwilling to abide by them.

Further, if the Senator or Congressperson has no obligation to vote in a manner consistent with the known wishes of their constituency, other than self preservation what reason would they have to even bother to vote in a way that is best for their home state or district? There is no recall option here, so once elected they are free to vote how they see fit and only an election, one that heavily favors all incumbents, is available to remove them. In Cassidy's case, that is a very long 6 year time frame.

Finally, this quote bothers me some.

quote:

---

Was he voted into office to do what he thinks is best for LA or to do what a majority of Louisianans think is best for LA? Because no matter who is elected, there is going to be an issue that arises where those two things aren't the same.

---

It seems to imply that there will be times when we citizens need someone smarter or more capable than ourselves to do things against our interests that are what we really need. To call this paternal is not quite doing it justice.