CDZ The WILL of the people, or the BEST INTERESTS of the people?

[Anathema]

Neither. They should be legislating based on Right and Wrong under the limitations provided by the Governing documents of the nation/state/locality they are governing.

 

[Lastamender]

Tough call on this. “Represent” in this topic is a subjective term.

Doing what the majority of ones constituency wants should be the rule vs than the exception. To use a silly example to illustrate a point:

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

(For the record I love dogs and find the idea abhorrent.)

OTOH, that cannot be an absolute either. If the constituency demands their Rep introduce something illegal, they should not be forced to.

What I'm thinking about is whether it's best to have only the loudest voices (either literally or financially) controlling the actions of a person who is supposed to represent all of their constituents, and not just those who can threaten them the most effectively.

And, I think that the best ideas don't come from just one end. Instead, I'd rather have a person who can see the big picture and take the best from across the spectrum. Create something new, instead of this insane, binary, winner-take-all environment.

Innovation. We used to do that in America.

Fair elections are what we used to do too. This last election was stolen. It has proven without a doubt the government is corrupt and does not give one f*ck about the citizens of this country.

 

[JLW]

Another way to phrase the OPs question is do we elect Representatives to lead or to follow?

The will of the people argument is one of going with the stream of thought prevalent at the time.

The best interest of the people argument is one of shaping public opinion rather than following it.

The purpose of leadership is to change public opinion when needed. History has shown that good leadership can change opinions for the better.

I don’t discount the will of the people argument, especially as it comes to elections, but once that representative is in office the best interests of the nation should be a priority, particularly when it is clear what is in the national interests.

However, in all democracies, ultimately, it comes down to the people you elect having the discretion and intelligence to discern what is in the National interest.

 

[JLW]

Tough call on this. “Represent” in this topic is a subjective term.

Doing what the majority of ones constituency wants should be the rule vs than the exception. To use a silly example to illustrate a point:

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

(For the record I love dogs and find the idea abhorrent.)

OTOH, that cannot be an absolute either. If the constituency demands their Rep introduce something illegal, they should not be forced to.

What I'm thinking about is whether it's best to have only the loudest voices (either literally or financially) controlling the actions of a person who is supposed to represent all of their constituents, and not just those who can threaten them the most effectively.

And, I think that the best ideas don't come from just one end. Instead, I'd rather have a person who can see the big picture and take the best from across the spectrum. Create something new, instead of this insane, binary, winner-take-all environment.

Innovation. We used to do that in America.

Fair elections are what we used to do too. This last election was stolen. It has proven without a doubt the government is corrupt and does not give one fuck about the citizens of this country.

The election was not stolen. That is the Big Lie that irresponsible or malicious politicians spread to rile up their sheep.

 

[dblack]

Should an elected representative legislate according to what they perceive to be the will of their constituents, or according to what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents? Obviously the two are not always going to be congruent.

Neither. Congress should legislate to protect our freedom to decide for ourselves what is in our best interests and pursue it as we see fit.

 

[progressive hunter]

Here's a random thought that just rolled into my little brain:

Should an elected representative legislate according to what they perceive to be the will of their constituents, or according to what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents? Obviously the two are not always going to be congruent.

So if you're in the House or the Senate, does winning that seat give you carte blanche to observe, analyze, formulate and advance policy that you feel is best for them, or are you obliged to base your actions on voices who contact you?

My first impulse is the former, where the representative has to be trusted to make appropriate decisions on their own. Thoughts?

whats the constitution say??

because thats their true rule book,,

 

[Lastamender]

Tough call on this. “Represent” in this topic is a subjective term.

Doing what the majority of ones constituency wants should be the rule vs than the exception. To use a silly example to illustrate a point:

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

(For the record I love dogs and find the idea abhorrent.)

OTOH, that cannot be an absolute either. If the constituency demands their Rep introduce something illegal, they should not be forced to.

What I'm thinking about is whether it's best to have only the loudest voices (either literally or financially) controlling the actions of a person who is supposed to represent all of their constituents, and not just those who can threaten them the most effectively.

And, I think that the best ideas don't come from just one end. Instead, I'd rather have a person who can see the big picture and take the best from across the spectrum. Create something new, instead of this insane, binary, winner-take-all environment.

Innovation. We used to do that in America.

Fair elections are what we used to do too. This last election was stolen. It has proven without a doubt the government is corrupt and does not give one fuck about the citizens of this country.

The election was not stolen. That is the Big Lie that irresponsible or malicious politicians spread to rile up their sheep.

The election was stolen. The Big lie is that it was not.

 

[dblack]

Tough call on this. “Represent” in this topic is a subjective term.

Doing what the majority of ones constituency wants should be the rule vs than the exception. To use a silly example to illustrate a point:

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

(For the record I love dogs and find the idea abhorrent.)

OTOH, that cannot be an absolute either. If the constituency demands their Rep introduce something illegal, they should not be forced to.

What I'm thinking about is whether it's best to have only the loudest voices (either literally or financially) controlling the actions of a person who is supposed to represent all of their constituents, and not just those who can threaten them the most effectively.

And, I think that the best ideas don't come from just one end. Instead, I'd rather have a person who can see the big picture and take the best from across the spectrum. Create something new, instead of this insane, binary, winner-take-all environment.

Innovation. We used to do that in America.

Fair elections are what we used to do too. This last election was stolen. It has proven without a doubt the government is corrupt and does not give one fuck about the citizens of this country.

The election was not stolen. That is the Big Lie that irresponsible or malicious politicians spread to rile up their sheep.

The election was stolen. The Big lie is that it was not.

Were you birther too? A truther? Do you also think the pandemic is fake? Just curious.

 

[Lastamender]

Tough call on this. “Represent” in this topic is a subjective term.

Doing what the majority of ones constituency wants should be the rule vs than the exception. To use a silly example to illustrate a point:

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

(For the record I love dogs and find the idea abhorrent.)

OTOH, that cannot be an absolute either. If the constituency demands their Rep introduce something illegal, they should not be forced to.

What I'm thinking about is whether it's best to have only the loudest voices (either literally or financially) controlling the actions of a person who is supposed to represent all of their constituents, and not just those who can threaten them the most effectively.

And, I think that the best ideas don't come from just one end. Instead, I'd rather have a person who can see the big picture and take the best from across the spectrum. Create something new, instead of this insane, binary, winner-take-all environment.

Innovation. We used to do that in America.

Fair elections are what we used to do too. This last election was stolen. It has proven without a doubt the government is corrupt and does not give one fuck about the citizens of this country.

The election was not stolen. That is the Big Lie that irresponsible or malicious politicians spread to rile up their sheep.

The election was stolen. The Big lie is that it was not.

Were you birther too? A truther? Just curious.

Why is it so hard to get transparency? GA is still stalling. Fraud will be proven eventually and they know it.

Fulton County, GA Hearing Turns Into Laughable Circus As County Officials Use Delaying Tactics To Avoid Showing Ballots - CDM - Human Reporters • Not Machines

Fulton County, GA Hearing Turns Into Laughable Circus As County Officials Use Delaying Tactics To Avoid Showing Ballots.

creativedestructionmedia.com

 

[dblack]

Tough call on this. “Represent” in this topic is a subjective term.

Doing what the majority of ones constituency wants should be the rule vs than the exception. To use a silly example to illustrate a point:

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

(For the record I love dogs and find the idea abhorrent.)

OTOH, that cannot be an absolute either. If the constituency demands their Rep introduce something illegal, they should not be forced to.

What I'm thinking about is whether it's best to have only the loudest voices (either literally or financially) controlling the actions of a person who is supposed to represent all of their constituents, and not just those who can threaten them the most effectively.

And, I think that the best ideas don't come from just one end. Instead, I'd rather have a person who can see the big picture and take the best from across the spectrum. Create something new, instead of this insane, binary, winner-take-all environment.

Innovation. We used to do that in America.

Fair elections are what we used to do too. This last election was stolen. It has proven without a doubt the government is corrupt and does not give one fuck about the citizens of this country.

The election was not stolen. That is the Big Lie that irresponsible or malicious politicians spread to rile up their sheep.

The election was stolen. The Big lie is that it was not.

Were you birther too? A truther? Just curious.

Why is it so hard to get transparency? GA is still stalling. Fraud will be proven eventually and they know it.

Fulton County, GA Hearing Turns Into Laughable Circus As County Officials Use Delaying Tactics To Avoid Showing Ballots - CDM - Human Reporters • Not Machines

Fulton County, GA Hearing Turns Into Laughable Circus As County Officials Use Delaying Tactics To Avoid Showing Ballots.

creativedestructionmedia.com

No answer? What about UFOs? Bigfoot?

 

[Lastamender]

Tough call on this. “Represent” in this topic is a subjective term.

Doing what the majority of ones constituency wants should be the rule vs than the exception. To use a silly example to illustrate a point:

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

(For the record I love dogs and find the idea abhorrent.)

OTOH, that cannot be an absolute either. If the constituency demands their Rep introduce something illegal, they should not be forced to.

What I'm thinking about is whether it's best to have only the loudest voices (either literally or financially) controlling the actions of a person who is supposed to represent all of their constituents, and not just those who can threaten them the most effectively.

And, I think that the best ideas don't come from just one end. Instead, I'd rather have a person who can see the big picture and take the best from across the spectrum. Create something new, instead of this insane, binary, winner-take-all environment.

Innovation. We used to do that in America.

Fair elections are what we used to do too. This last election was stolen. It has proven without a doubt the government is corrupt and does not give one fuck about the citizens of this country.

The election was not stolen. That is the Big Lie that irresponsible or malicious politicians spread to rile up their sheep.

The election was stolen. The Big lie is that it was not.

Were you birther too? A truther? Just curious.

Why is it so hard to get transparency? GA is still stalling. Fraud will be proven eventually and they know it.

Fulton County, GA Hearing Turns Into Laughable Circus As County Officials Use Delaying Tactics To Avoid Showing Ballots - CDM - Human Reporters • Not Machines

Fulton County, GA Hearing Turns Into Laughable Circus As County Officials Use Delaying Tactics To Avoid Showing Ballots.

creativedestructionmedia.com

No answer? What about UFOs? Bigfoot?

You got your answer. GA officials fighting to keep ballots from audit. That would be an admission of guilt if Trump was doing it, and do not say it would not be.

 

[Mac1958]

Another way to phrase the OPs question is do we elect Representatives to lead or to follow?

The will of the people argument is one of going with the stream of thought prevalent at the time.

The best interest of the people argument is one of shaping public opinion rather than following it.

The purpose of leadership is to change public opinion when needed. History has shown that good leadership can change opinions for the better.

I don’t discount the will of the people argument, especially as it comes to elections, but once that representative is in office the best interests of the nation should be a priority, particularly when it is clear what is in the national interests.

However, in all democracies, ultimately, it comes down to the people you elect having the discretion and intelligence to discern what is in the National interest.

It can only be a thought exercise to begin with, since the top priorities of our elected representatives are (1) pleasing the base, (2) re-election and (3) fundraising, in no particular order. What's best for the country is down the list.

 

[Mac-7]

When a politician listens to and acts for their base only, it becomes nothing more than the "tyranny of the majority"

Thats what biden is doing right now

and what obama did for 8 years

 

[OKTexas]

Here's a random thought that just rolled into my little brain:

Should an elected representative legislate according to what they perceive to be the will of their constituents, or according to what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents? Obviously the two are not always going to be congruent.

So if you're in the House or the Senate, does winning that seat give you carte blanche to observe, analyze, formulate and advance policy that you feel is best for them, or are you obliged to base your actions on voices who contact you?

My first impulse is the former, where the representative has to be trusted to make appropriate decisions on their own. Thoughts?

What do you not understand about the word "represent"? Congresscritters are elected to "represent" what their constituents want, not their own opinions or the opinions of their party.

.

 

[meaner gene]

It can only be a thought exercise to begin with, since the top priorities of our elected representatives are (1) pleasing the base, (2) re-election and (3) fundraising, in no particular order. What's best for the country is down the list.

It's actually a very good question, since the constitution guarantees a "republican" (representative) form of government. Where the people chose their representatives, and their representatives make the decisions.

In the beginning of our nation, the founders didn't really trust the people to make decisions, and instead had a view of the learned being elected, and doing in their minds what was best for the people.

But this view has changed over time. From the 17th opening up all of congress to the will of the people, to states having faithful elector laws, which the USSC upheld, where electors are no longer elected for their judgement, and their votes can't be changed.

 

[Mac1958]

It can only be a thought exercise to begin with, since the top priorities of our elected representatives are (1) pleasing the base, (2) re-election and (3) fundraising, in no particular order. What's best for the country is down the list.

It's actually a very good question, since the constitution guarantees a "republican" (representative) form of government. Where the people chose their representatives, and their representatives make the decisions.

In the beginning of our nation, the founders didn't really trust the people to make decisions, and instead had a view of the learned being elected, and doing in their minds what was best for the people.

But this view has changed over time. From the 17th opening up all of congress to the will of the people, to states having faithful elector laws, which the USSC upheld, where electors are no longer elected for their judgement, and their votes can't be changed.

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation, as if (a) they could, or (b) their constituency is some simplistic monolith.

Ramming through ideas that only please the loudest parts of a base is not terribly intelligent to me. That only contributes to these wild swings back and forth, and kills innovation.

 

[meaner gene]

You got your answer. GA officials fighting to keep ballots from audit. That would be an admission of guilt if Trump was doing it, and do not say it would not be.

Actually making a Trump analogy is the correct approach. But you forgot the Trump approach is for the election officials to fight the subpoena for the ballots, all the way to the supreme court, which will take 2-3 years.

Until then, they are as Trump supports oft heard saying, is within their rights.

 

[OKTexas]

Tough call on this. “Represent” in this topic is a subjective term.

Doing what the majority of ones constituency wants should be the rule vs than the exception. To use a silly example to illustrate a point:

If the majority of a constituency demands a bill to legalize dog fighting, I do not think a rep should be able to say “Not happening, if you don’t like it vote me out”

(For the record I love dogs and find the idea abhorrent.)

OTOH, that cannot be an absolute either. If the constituency demands their Rep introduce something illegal, they should not be forced to.

Oh, you mean like bills to legalize recreational marijuana, which is clearly illegal by federal law?

.

 

[Mac-7]

Evidently there are some who think that an elected representative needs to know exactly what their constituents want in absolutely every situation

Most of the corrupt swamp rats that libs like you support have to find out what a majority of the voters want because left to drift on their own they are clueless

trump always knew the general opinion of his voters - secure borders, smart trade with china, law and order in the streets.

everything that was best for America

because he wanted those things too

 

[meaner gene]

When a politician listens to and acts for their base only, it becomes nothing more than the "tyranny of the majority"

Thats what biden is doing right now

and what obama did for 8 years

Actually the opposite. Trump represented his base, a minority of voters, where Obama/Biden represented the majority of voters.