Merry Andrew wrote:woiyo wrote:boomerang wrote:Do you really feel that way, woiyo?
That is a very disquieting thought.
All this time I thought the president and other elected officials were public servants.........
Why?
Imagine being in a position whereby you do not have to satisfy party leaders and do what YOU think is right as opposed to what will satisfy some special interest or political group that you may need to get re-elected.
I hate like hell to get serious on this silly subject, but satisfying the wishes of one's constituency is what an elected official is supposed to do. Not special interest groups, no, but the wishes of those who elected you in the first place. The politico who 'votes his/her concience' is copping out of that responsibility. If 90% of the voters in a given district are opposed to capital punishment and the death penalty, then a law-and-order type who's been elected by that constutuency has no business voting his concience in favor of lethal injections. Just one example.
Oh? We're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Indeed, much of the constitution -- and the basic structure of the federal government -- was intended to insulate us from populism (a "mobocracy," "poll-ocracy," or whatever you want to call it ). I don't see anything wrong with voting against the polls within this representative framework. If a politician goes too far, the people can check his or her power by voting against that politician. Beyond that, I don't think there exists much consensus about what a politician is "supposed to do."
Besides, if a politician only ruled only according to the will and interests of
present voters (living individuals over 18) our government would be ruined by dangerous shor-termism... Oh, wait... damn...
