I've been wondering about a legal issue here for a couple of days (and no, it's not this one. What thoughts could I possibly have on that one?). Some of you may know that recently the mayor of Nashville Bill Purcell vetoed an "English-only" bill, which would officially enshrine English as the only language the Nashville government would do business in. CNN.com covered this story too.
I could debate the merits of this bill and quote Scripture about welcoming the alien (Leviticus 19:34, for instance), but that's not really what I'm thinking of here.
On what level do the people who are elected to their office have to represent the people of their districts? Is it the responsibility of the representative to vote what the majority of their constituents feel or should the individual representative vote his or her own conscience?
For instance, if a representative is convinced that the English only bill is the right thing for her community, but her constituents don't, which way should the representative vote? Her conscience or the will of the people? I realize that this is a bit out of the norm on this blog, but what are your feelings on this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The representative is elected to represent his/her constituents. However, how does the representative truly gauge the majority opinion in his/her district? The representative likely will get the impression that the most vocal is the majority which may or may not be true.
For me, I would vote based on representing my constituents, regardless of whether I agreed. Of course, if I did disagree, I would schedule communications to get dialogue in my area before the vote was cast, and maybe the majority might see things differently.
If I were faced with having to vote for something that I felt so strongly against morally or ethically that I could not carry my districts majority opinion, I would resign. I would rather resign than betray my principles and betray those I promised to serve. I would resign because I would no longer be able to carryout the duties I swore to perform.
But that is just me. And I would clearly communicate the above during my campaign, so the people would know what to expect. That would probably avoid any issue right there, they wouldn't elect me.
There are 3 major theories/opinions in American political thought on this.
The first is "representative", which is what you and Tony are talkin about. Which is that, since we are a sort-of democracy, the elected officials should do what we want.
The second (I don't remember what it's called exactly) is based on the idea that we are not a true democracy, and that officials are elected because they are more experienced/intelligent/educated than the masses. They should therefore use their own knowledge to make decisions, since they know more than we do.
The third is a hybrid - that the elected officials should do their best to be a direct representative, but when the will of the people clearly goes against what they know or believe to be the best, they have a duty to go against the will of the people.
Which is best is entirely opinion, like which political party is best, and in fact, the styles often match up to the party lines.
Not surprisingly, I fall somewhere in between 2 and 3. Especially in today's America, and at the federal level, it takes a lot to be in government. Full-time politicos know a lot more than we do about any given issue, and (ideally, anyway) I trust them to use that knowledge.
And if they don't, well, then, that's why they have to periodically be re-elected. If they are abusing their power or making poor decisions, that's how we tell them so.
This is, of course, ignoring the issues of corruption and apathy among voters and how to deal with those.
You are right, Tiffany, we are not a full-blown democracy, contrary to popular belief, because we as "the people" do not vote on every issue. The term you were looking for to describe our system is that we are a republic, where we elect representatives to be our voice in making those decisions. It's been too long since my government classes in high school, but I think you are right that it was created to have more educated individuals elected to positions of power to make decisions we are too ignorant to make. I'd like to think we've come a long way since the days that form of government was established, but that is debatable.
I would love to have a representative like Tony that gauged the district's opinion on every decision, but I don't know if that is feasible, simply to his point of the loudest voice would tend to win out. That's why it's good to have basic platforms to say, "here is what I believe and how I plan to vote" during campaigns, to ensure that the person that makes such decisions most like I would is representing me. Unfortunately, it usually takes the form of voting for whomever is closest.
I could also get on my soapbox of smaller government and separation of church and state, but I'll stop.
I guess what we have is also a hybrid, since the more important votes usually are put to a popular vote. I will say I heard that related to this specific issue (the bill for all government business be done in English), that the rep. that sponsored the bill said that he'll propose it for a public referedum if he can't get the 27 votes in the Metro Council, which it doesn't seem like he will.
----------->
wanting to comment on the uncommentable part.
Yep, I agree with Tiffany and Jeff... We are a democractic REPUBLIC which means, the people don't make all the decisions. They elect people that make the decisions. True democracy is BAD. It would be about the worst thing in the world. The masses have everything filtered through media, and make decisions that way. They don't have the inside information that the politicians have. We vote people into office to make the decisions that we are incapable of making. If the politician has a conscience, they will do what is right regardless of the opinion of the people.
Its the same with the illegal immigration thing... the people are clamoring for a wall to be built (who builds it?) and for illegal aliens to be shot upon arrival (seriously?) but the politicians aren't doing anything about it because they know that it would be a bad thing.
I wish someone would come out and say why its a bad thing so this racist xenophobic crap can stop.
I guess this is more indisputable proof I should never run for office, no matter whether it's a democracy or a republic.
I could not vote for something that my constituents wanted that I thought was wrong. I suppose I depend too much on "to thine own self be true" to do that. If I think a particulat issue is wrong, then I would feel a moral imperative to vote against it, even if i was te only one in my district that felt that way.
Another reason I feel that way is that we elect these people as leaders, not as followers. They lead and it is our responsibility to follow as members of the republic. Then, if we don't like how they are leading, I think it's our responsibility to vote different scoundrels in and protest what they are doing.
Post a Comment