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

[Mac1958]

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?

 

[Mac-7]

My first impulse is the former

If trump were president you’d swear it’s the latter.

but you’d still be in a pickle because trump voters would want policies that you dont like

the best thing for you is to make sure democrats always win the elections

 

[Mac1958]

My first impulse is the former

If trump were president you’d swear it’s the latter.

but you’d still be in a pickle because trump voters would want policies that you dont like

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

 

[Mac-7]

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

you were not so accommodating aka reasonable after the 2016 election

 

[Jets]

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.

 

[Mac-7]

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

Progressives/democrats solve that problem by finding a compliant federal judge willing to make laws from the bench

 

[Shelzin]

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?

Oh... This one could get fun... I'm going to leave it alone till I get home tonight. Good topic.

 

[WTF19]

My first impulse is the former

If trump were president you’d swear it’s the latter.

but you’d still be in a pickle because trump voters would want policies that you dont like

He was voted out, so the system worked. I can live with that.

I don't know what to tell those of you who think he won.

Hopefully now we'll get some intelligent, reasoned responses to my clear question.

you tell them the same thing---the communist demonRATS stoled the corrupted election. stuffing the fraudulant dominion voting machines, caught on film, after sending the counters home for the night. something that has never happened. go figure, and then the demonRATS jump right into the communists bed

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

I trust no bureaucrat. I don't elect civil servants to think, but to run the machine according to the will of the people, under Constitutional restraint.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

No one had to threaten trump to do the right thing

he was in touch with the voters from the day he came down the escalator

but unlike biden or hillary, pelosi or schumer, trump is not a career washington swamp rat

stop voting for lifelong swamp creatures and you wont have to fret so much about the decisions they make

 

[struth]

Well the idea is that someone campaigns on what they believe is in the best interest of their voters, and the voters elect them to do just that....that is their will.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Both, there should be a consensus between people and govt.
Otherwise if there is a gap, that means the policy is faith based and not proven to be the best interests and will of the people.

All conflicts and objections should be resolved to respect due process and the right to redress grievances.

If we can't reach 100% perfect consensus, as with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service passed by unanimous vote by Congress www.ethics-commission.net
Then we could have votes in advance on
1. What majority is needed to agree it is good enough, like 2/3 or 3/4 or only 51%
2. If the content or policy addresses by the proposed law or reform is Constitutional for federal govt, or belongs to people or states
3. If there is a clear division over political beliefs by party where the only way to reach agreement is to divide policy jurisdiction and funding into separate options for taxpayers to choose.
Etc

 

[surada]

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?

This is the reason for the public school system.. You need a literate, educated citizenry to have a democratic republic.. Otherwise, you may as well be a mob in Nigeria.

 

[surada]

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.

No one had to threaten trump to do the right thing

he was in touch with the voters from the day he came down the escalator

but unlike biden or hillary, pelosi or schumer, trump is not a career washington swamp rat

stop voting for lifelong swamp creatures and you wont have to fret so much about the decisions they make

This is why you need literate voters and a president who is educated rather than dumb as a stump. We don't need an ignorant demagogue who can whip up the mob with lies and jingles. That's how Germany got Hitler.

 

[sartre play]

Have a problem with both the will of the people and the best interest of the people.
First example of will of people gone wrong the 3 strikes law. 2nd the storming of our capital.
Emotional choices made while angry.
Best interest of the people not possible now.
Those chosen not on ability but political party and money.

 

[Mac-7]

This is why you need literate voters and a president who is educated rather than dumb as a stump.

Neither of those statements are true

trimp policies were the best for America and completely in line with the wishes of trump voters

 

[Mac1958]

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?

This is the reason for the public school system.. You need a literate, educated citizenry to have a democratic republic.. Otherwise, you may as well be a mob in Nigeria.

There are elements of mob rule now. When a politician listens to and acts for their base only, it becomes nothing more than the "tyranny of the majority". So each tribe either wins 100% or loses 100%. Back and forth, back and forth, with no real progress made, as the rest of the world passes us by.

A third option would be for "leaders" to innovate and create NEW ideas, but we're simply no longer capable of that. We don't even want to HEAR about it. That's not how America became great, that's for damn sure.

 

[Mac1958]

Have a problem with both the will of the people and the best interest of the people.
First example of will of people gone wrong the 3 strikes law. 2nd the storming of our capital.
Emotional choices made while angry.
Best interest of the people not possible now.
Those chosen not on ability but political party and money.

A problem is now that we're getting reactionaries voted into office, and those who can be pragmatic are getting the hell out. All that does is make things worse.

 

[surada]

This is why you need literate voters and a president who is educated rather than dumb as a stump.

Neither of those statements are true

trimp policies were the best for America and completely in line with the wishes of trump voters

The public school system in America began with teaching immigrants to speak English and read and write so they participate in Civil life. Don't take my word for it. Read the history of the public school system.