• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congressmen who tote the party line > 90%

In the current climate, is it ever proper for a US Cong. to vote with party > 90%

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 3 50.0%
  • Total voters
    6
Cameron

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
6,276
Reaction score
5,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
In 2009 in the Senate, Democrats stuck together for an average party support score of 91 percent — the highest ever. The House Democrats' score was the same — 91 percent — just below the all-time high of 92 percent set in 2007 and 2008. Republican Party support was also high, though not record-breaking: 85 percent in the Senate and 87 percent in the House.
Click to expand...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122441095

I presume this has only gotten worse, particularly for Republicans, since 2009.

The question is: do you think a US Congressmen who votes with his party more than 90% of the time properly represents his district/state? Rather than vote hypothetically about times when one party might be 100% right on every issue, vote purely based on the current environment.

I know you guys don't like yes or no polls, but too bad. If you think it is possible in the current climate, vote "yes."
 
Last edited:
I think he represents it in the way that a representitive republic is meant to be...IE the district votes for the person they think will best represent them based on that individuals judgement of the issues. If the guy wins, then he should go and vote according to what his best judgement on the issues is. If that happens to be 90% in support of one party or another...so be it. If his constituents don't like it they can vote him out the next go round.

I don't believe that politicians should be expected to moderate themselves in congress to represent "everyone" in their districts views because such is impossible. By compromising in various places all you do is alienate some people in your district while gaining favor from others. Unless your district is primarily made up of all the same thinking people it would be almost impossible to truly reflect everything they feel.

As such, we don't elect politicians to vote in accordance with what WE want. We elect politicians in hopes that their judgement is the judgement we want representing us. By that token, sometimes that judgement may go against what we think and sometimes we may be on the losing end and will be stuck with someone whose judgement we don't trust. In the latter cases, that's when you try hard to vote the guy out the next time around.
 
Krhazy said:
CQ: 2009 Was The Most Partisan Year Ever : NPR

I presume this has only gotten worse, particularly for Republicans, since 2009.

The question is: do you think a US Congressmen who votes with his party more than 90% of the time properly represents his district/state? Rather than vote hypothetically about times when one party might be 100% right on every issue, vote purely based on the current environment.

I know you guys don't like yes or no polls, but too bad. If you think it is possible in the current climate, vote "yes."
Click to expand...

I think it's just more evidence that the districting process (encouraged by the two-party winner-take-all system) is broken.

Although obviously something else is going on as this is happening in the Senate too.
 
I guess it depends on the vote and parameters of the bill.
 
I agree with Zyphlin.

A particular Congressman got elected by a majority of the people he/she represents. If the Congressman's views follow Party attitudes, then that's the way he/she should vote...even if it means >90%.

Of course, you always have the politician who campaigns as a moderate in order to get elected and then votes 100% Party-line, but they tend to get booted at the first opportunity. Ken Salazar of Colorado is a case in point. The only reason he wasn't booted is because he bolted at his first chance.

Honesty is best policy, I always say.
 
Krhazy said:
CQ: 2009 Was The Most Partisan Year Ever : NPR

I presume this has only gotten worse, particularly for Republicans, since 2009.

The question is: do you think a US Congressmen who votes with his party more than 90% of the time properly represents his district/state? Rather than vote hypothetically about times when one party might be 100% right on every issue, vote purely based on the current environment.

I know you guys don't like yes or no polls, but too bad. If you think it is possible in the current climate, vote "yes."
Click to expand...

Oh good a thread where someone is bitching about the fact their party can't get what they want so they try to demonize the opposition.
I do not know if you know this but elected official is elected because of his or her alleged beliefs and past record,which also includes party affiliation. They are elected to oppose the opposition regarding issues they do not support and to work together with the other side on issues they actually do support. This idea that partisanship is a bad thing is nonsense. Partisanship is why we vote for one particular person and not the other. If we vote for a candidate because he says he is for X,Y, and Z and opposes A,B, and C then we expect that politician to vote for every X,Y, and Z and to oppose A,B, and C. That said there are some candidates out there who will support something and then merely oppose it because the opposition supports it like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich,but they are not an example of all politicians or all republicans.
 
This is why I roll my eyes when people say they vote the man not the party. If you vote for a Dem they will side with the DNC 90% of the time, same if you vote for a rep, they will side with GOP. Voting for "the man" is naive.
 
All too often, the Congressman is expected to represent a mob, the "tea baggers", as an example.. He can either go along with this, or he can use his head and think (vote) for himself..
The later is much the better, but he would probably not win reelection..
Those who simply vote the party line are either stupid or lazy, and even sometimes right..
Our system is in dire need of reform.
 
I feel like a lot of times they vote as a party rather than an individual.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
This is why I roll my eyes when people say they vote the man not the party. If you vote for a Dem they will side with the DNC 90% of the time, same if you vote for a rep, they will side with GOP. Voting for "the man" is naive.
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure if you elect a liberal republican then that republican is going to vote like a liberal, like Mitt Romney for example.
 
I do not know what this "Mitt Romney" is...
IMO, he is a fool, neither a liberal nor a conservative...also, that he cannot be trusted.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think he represents it in the way that a representitive republic is meant to be...IE the district votes for the person they think will best represent them based on that individuals judgement of the issues. If the guy wins, then he should go and vote according to what his best judgement on the issues is. If that happens to be 90% in support of one party or another...so be it. If his constituents don't like it they can vote him out the next go round.

I don't believe that politicians should be expected to moderate themselves in congress to represent "everyone" in their districts views because such is impossible. By compromising in various places all you do is alienate some people in your district while gaining favor from others. Unless your district is primarily made up of all the same thinking people it would be almost impossible to truly reflect everything they feel.

As such, we don't elect politicians to vote in accordance with what WE want. We elect politicians in hopes that their judgement is the judgement we want representing us. By that token, sometimes that judgement may go against what we think and sometimes we may be on the losing end and will be stuck with someone whose judgement we don't trust. In the latter cases, that's when you try hard to vote the guy out the next time around.
Click to expand...

Perchance they shouldn't "moderate" themselves too much. But back in the day, there used to be this thing called compromise. That's gone, it's all partisan politics which serves no one. So the Republicans vote with party 91% of the time and the Democrats vote with the party 91% of the time. If the people don't like it, they can switch between which 91% they get. So, you can see the problem with that I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom