On one of my other boards, I brought up this question and no one bit. I know people will here, and I am really curious what people think.

 

Should a legislator represent his district with the mentality that if my district wants it, I should vote for it, because that is really representing their collective opinions, or should they take the stance that the people elected me to and that means they trust my judgement in tough matters to make the best decision for my district in the long term?

I think that generally speaking they are elected for their judgment and not on specific issues, since this is a republic, but it's a little of both. Depending on the constituency and the year, they may elect someone with Judgment Pattern A (Dem) over Judgment Pattern B (Republican) or vice versa. You're not going to expect them to do things you agree with all the time, but you're not going to vote for someone who makes decisions that are philosophically different from yours most of the time.

I think that generally speaking they are elected for their judgment and not on specific issues, since this is a republic, but it's a little of both. Depending on the constituency and the year, they may elect someone with Judgment Pattern A (Dem) over Judgment Pattern B (Republican) or vice versa. You're not going to expect them to do things you agree with all the time, but you're not going to vote for someone who makes decisions that are philosophically different from yours most of the time.

 

I wasn't really going for how they are elected, but more like how they should vote on the specific issues. Put on your "If I were the legislator" shoes.

 

For example, this thought originated out of school district realignment talks in my hometown. They want to move many of the poorer (ie black) kids into the richer (ie white) schools and all of the parents in those areas are pissed. Should a person who is voting on this respect the wishes of the majority of the school district and vote against it, or should they vote for it, knowing it is better for the kids, and for the district in the long run (poor kids get better schooling opportunities being the biggest reason)?

I wasn't really going for how they are elected, but more like how they should vote on the specific issues. Put on your "If I were the legislator" shoes.

 

For example, this thought originated out of school district realignment talks in my hometown. They want to move many of the poorer (ie black) kids into the richer (ie white) schools and all of the parents in those areas are pissed. Should a person who is voting on this respect the wishes of the majority of the school district and vote against it, or should they vote for it, knowing it is better for the kids, and for the district in the long run (poor kids get better schooling opportunities being the biggest reason)?

Oh, sorry, I kind of danced around that a little.

 

I think that, within reason, they should do what they think is best for the kids. Assuming they have all the information available to them to make such a decision. Same thing as tax increases, nobody wants to pay more taxes, but sometimes you have to, and nobody's going to do it on their own unless you tell them to.

 

So I'd say on a national level, if we're talking about a hypothetical vote on a war and you represent a liberal leaning (i.e., anti-war) district/state but you feel that the war is the right thing to do, you vote for the war and worry about your reelection chances/having to explain the vote later. Of course you run the risk of it biting you in the ass like it did Hillary Clinton, but that's a risk you take.

Edited April 15, 200917 yr by lostfan

I wasn't really going for how they are elected, but more like how they should vote on the specific issues. Put on your "If I were the legislator" shoes.

 

For example, this thought originated out of school district realignment talks in my hometown. They want to move many of the poorer (ie black) kids into the richer (ie white) schools and all of the parents in those areas are pissed. Should a person who is voting on this respect the wishes of the majority of the school district and vote against it, or should they vote for it, knowing it is better for the kids, and for the district in the long run (poor kids get better schooling opportunities being the biggest reason)?

I think this is one of the reasons why a bicameral legislature is a good thing (I'm looking at you, Nebraska). The assembly of representatives (whatever that state may call it), should represent their district's best interests the great majority of the time. The senate on the other hand, with broader districts and a more senior position, should think in terms of the bigger picture. That is what I'd call the ideal balance.

 

There are exceptions for both of course.

 

In a single-member district democracy you're voting for the person's judgment over their stance on the issues. Doesn't matter whether it's in the House or the Senate, that's just the way the system is.