• 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!

Who are our representatives responsible to?

Who are our representatives responsible to?


  • Total voters
    32

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Who are our representatives responsible to?

Senators and Representatives.

Should they answer to their constituents? Should they bend to the will of the population in general? Should they do what they feel is "right"?

There are other examples in history, but let's go with the current political climate. Those on the left decry the "Tea Party's" efforts to thwart virtually everything the President and the Dems want to do. I don't think that's really disputable, but... so? If that is what their constituents want, then isn't it their job to do so?

And at what point does representing one's own constituents become just counter-productive?
 
Who are our representatives responsible to?

Senators and Representatives.

Should they answer to their constituents? Should they bend to the will of the population in general? Should they do what they feel is "right"?

There are other examples in history, but let's go with the current political climate. Those on the left decry the "Tea Party's" efforts to thwart virtually everything the President and the Dems want to do. I don't think that's really disputable, but... so? If that is what their constituents want, then isn't it their job to do so?

And at what point does representing one's own constituents become just counter-productive?

Good idea for a thread.

In general I think politicians should do what they feel is right. They should run on their own beliefs, and if elected then act on them. For situations that arise while they're in office they should generally do what they think is best and face the voters for those choices in the next election. Perhaps if their own belief goes against a clear overwhelming majority of their constituents they should heed them, but in general I don't think politicians should be constantly trying to figure out what the slight majority of their constituents want against their own beliefs in order to position themselves for re-election. Rather the politicians should stand up for what they believe in and then face the public for re-election.
 
I've always felt it is a combination of what the constituents want and what they think is right. Most times they should be what your constituents voted for, but sometimes judgment calls are the right calls. Granted for this to apply though it requires Congress to not be whining and acting like five year olds.
 
They should vote based on what they think is right, frankly most Americans too stupid to have intelligent opinions about the issues that the government deals with and even those that have semi-intelligent opinions don't have one for absolutely every issue and problem.

Any Congressman who wants to be a good Congressman would employ a whole staff of experts on the wide varity of issues that he has to vote on, average citizens don't have that kind expertise at their finger tips over even the education to understand it if they did. That way he can have the best information, the best analysis, to make the best choice.
 
They are responsible to their investors while delicately balancing their careers.

And I don't mean that they don't care but this is their career and it pays very well if you can put a few terms in. You get bigger backers once you're a winner. I'm pretty sure that their country is very much in second place when decisions are made.
 
Who are our representatives responsible to?

Senators and Representatives.

Should they answer to their constituents? Should they bend to the will of the population in general? Should they do what they feel is "right"?

There are other examples in history, but let's go with the current political climate. Those on the left decry the "Tea Party's" efforts to thwart virtually everything the President and the Dems want to do. I don't think that's really disputable, but... so? If that is what their constituents want, then isn't it their job to do so?

And at what point does representing one's own constituents become just counter-productive?

Elected officials are responsible to their constituents, the rest of the country doesn't vote for them.
 
I've always felt it is a combination of what the constituents want and what they think is right. Most times they should be what your constituents voted for, but sometimes judgment calls are the right calls. Granted for this to apply though it requires Congress to not be whining and acting like five year olds.

IOW, complicated issues don't have simple answers.
 
Good idea for a thread.

In general I think politicians should do what they feel is right. They should run on their own beliefs, and if elected then act on them. For situations that arise while they're in office they should generally do what they think is best and face the voters for those choices in the next election. Perhaps if their own belief goes against a clear overwhelming majority of their constituents they should heed them, but in general I don't think politicians should be constantly trying to figure out what the slight majority of their constituents want against their own beliefs in order to position themselves for re-election. Rather the politicians should stand up for what they believe in and then face the public for re-election.

our representatives are suppose to represent the people that elect them, and do their bidding....that is why the house was created a democracy, of direct election.

my representative does not present you, or your beliefs, or other parts of this nation ,and he is not elected to do his own thing., that is also why he has a 2 year term, to keep him close to the people he represents.
 
our representatives are suppose to represent the people that elect them, and do their bidding....that is why the house was created a democracy, of direct election.

my representative does not present you, of your beliefs, and he is not elected to do his own thing., that is also why he has a 2 year term, to keep him close to the people he represents

He was elected to give voice to the people, but not attempt to parrot their beliefs on every issue. He should run on what he believes and if that is unacceptable the people should not vote for him. It is designed to give voice to the people, but if it was just having the representatives agree with his constituents on every issue, people would directly vote on House legislation.
 
our representatives are suppose to represent the people that elect them, and do their bidding....that is why the house was created a democracy, of direct election.

my representative does not present you, or your beliefs, or other parts of this nation ,and he is not elected to do his own thing., that is also why he has a 2 year term, to keep him close to the people he represents.

If that is the case why even have a representative? We could just run a set of polls on every significant vote/issue and use the average of those polls to decide how a district should vote. If a representative shouldn't be an independent voice capable of making his or her own decisions on the critical issues of the day then we should do away with the thing altogether.
 
He was elected to give voice to the people, but not attempt to parrot their beliefs on every issue. He should run on what he believes and if that is unacceptable the people should not vote for him. It is designed to give voice to the people, but if it was just having the representatives agree with his constituents on every issue, people would directly vote on House legislation.

yes to give voice to the people who elect him, we do not have a national government.... its a union of states.... he runs on a platform of beliefs he feels represents the people of his district.

it would be impossible for the people to vote on every issue in the house, , they find it hard now to vote every 2 years.

the representatives were given 2 years terms for a reason, , becuase if any actions they take which are against the people who elected them, the founders believed it would still be fresh in the minds of the people, to throw them out of office.
 
If that is the case why even have a representative? We could just run a set of polls on every significant vote/issue and use the average of those polls to decide how a district should vote. If a representative shouldn't be an independent voice capable of making his or her own decisions on the critical issues of the day then we should do away with the thing altogether.


the house in the representation of the people....the people's interest..

when i elect someone to the house, i elect him becuase he takes a position as close to mind, as i can find........so your telling me, he can run on a platform pandering to me, and then when elected, i am suppose to be ok with it if he goes off into another direction, and just say......."he exercising his own decision"....thats not how it works.

he is a representative of the people of his district, that why they elect him to do their bidding.

before the 17 amendment the senator was the representative of the state legislature of the state and did there bidding.
 
Last edited:
yes to give voice to the people who elect him, we do not have a national government.... its a union of states.... he runs on a platform of beliefs he feels represents the people of his district.

it would be impossible for the people to vote on every issue in the house, , they find it hard now to vote every 2 years.

the representatives were given 2 years terms for a reason, , becuase if any actions they take which are against the people who elected them, the founders believed it would still be fresh in the minds of the people, to throw them out of office.

I agree with everything you said. The two term limit is to make it easier for the masses to enforce their will. But it is not practical to vote on every issue solely the way that your constituents believe. You're elected as a representative to vote the way you believe on a wide range of issues. If the people have a problem with it, then within two short years they can kick you out and elect someone more in line with their beliefs. But it is not the politician's job to fall in line with what his constituents believe.
 
when i elect someone to the house, i elect him becuase he takes a position as close to mind, as i can find........so your telling me, he can run on a platform pandering to me, and then when elected, i am suppose to be ok with it if he goes off into another direction, and just say......."he exercising his own decision"....thats not how it works.

I don't think that's what Sherman was saying. And it's not what I'm saying either. Politicians should run on what they believe and then act on it. The electorate should then vote for the candidate closest to their views.
 
I don't think that's what Sherman was saying. And it's not what I'm saying either. Politicians should run on what they believe and then act on it. The electorate should then vote for the candidate closest to their views.


ah!... then i have misunderstood both of you then.

one thing i saw in the op, was about the general population.

some believe that their representative should vote the way the polls dictate....even if its against that representatives platform.

sometimes bills are good for one part of america and not other parts,....which is why nation wide polls are not a good determining factor for politicians.
 
the house in the representation of the people....the people's interest..

when i elect someone to the house, i elect him becuase he takes a position as close to mind, as i can find........so your telling me, he can run on a platform pandering to me, and then when elected, i am suppose to be ok with it if he goes off into another direction, and just say......."he exercising his own decision"....thats not how it works.

he is a representative of the people of his district, that why they elect him to do their bidding.

before the 17 amendment the senator was the representative of the state legislature of the state and did there bidding.

Well the logical remedy I would think would be to oust this person from office the next time an election rolls around. Congressman only have a two year turn around time so you don't have to wait long if you feel your representative has not served the interests of your community.
 
well the logical remedy i would think would be to oust this person from office the next time an election rolls around. Congressman only have a two year turn around time so you don't have to wait long if you feel your representative has not served the interests of your community.

you exactly right, that is why the founders stated 2 year term on purpose, to keep their representatives actions fresh in their minds for the next election.
 
Who are our representatives responsible to?

Senators and Representatives.

Should they answer to their constituents? Should they bend to the will of the population in general? Should they do what they feel is "right"?

There are other examples in history, but let's go with the current political climate. Those on the left decry the "Tea Party's" efforts to thwart virtually everything the President and the Dems want to do. I don't think that's really disputable, but... so? If that is what their constituents want, then isn't it their job to do so?

And at what point does representing one's own constituents become just counter-productive?

The Congress (and all federal officials) swears to the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
 
They should be responsible to their constituents, they frequently act responsible to their big money supporters/lobbyists
 
It's the other way around. You don't vote a representative because your checklist looks like theirs, you vote for them because they think like you. It stands to reason then that they would vote much like you would if you had all the information they have.

My Representative is Tom Graves.:cool:
 
Who are our representatives responsible to?

Senators and Representatives.

Should they answer to their constituents? Should they bend to the will of the population in general? Should they do what they feel is "right"?

There are other examples in history, but let's go with the current political climate. Those on the left decry the "Tea Party's" efforts to thwart virtually everything the President and the Dems want to do. I don't think that's really disputable, but... so? If that is what their constituents want, then isn't it their job to do so?

And at what point does representing one's own constituents become just counter-productive?

... in an ideal universe, they would be responsible to their constituents, but for that to work or be sustainable the constituents themselves have to adhere to certain standards of moral behavior.

(1) not be easily manipulated
(2) be conscious of history, the dangers of the moment, and the possibilites of the future
(3) be able to understand, focus on, and communicate their interests
(4) balance out their interests with the needs of their fellow countrymen and the human race as a whole, aka, believe in something higher than their own opinions or material well being

And so on.
 
Last edited:
Who should they be responsible to? The people who put them in office. Who are they actually responsible to? Special interests.
 
I had to vote "other" because you forgot the option for Satan.
 
Allow me to answer the question from practical experience. My job is chief of staff for a state representative in Michigan. We have been here for two terms and will be term limited after three.

It is the view of the Rep that he works for the constitutients who elected him to the job and is their servant. We have an open door policy in Lansing and any person can come in to make their thoughts known on any issue. He does give extra credence to the views of actual constituents - more if they show up on the past voters rolls. We keep a record of calls or letters on a particular issue and that carries weight - but does not always decide his vote if other relevant information outweighs those opinions.

It has been our experience that people want a rep who works hard for the best interests of the district. If you do not vote the way they desired, most will accept a reasonable explaination as to why.
 
Back
Top Bottom