4 ms·

I think it is important to remember that elected representatives are analogous to legal counsel—- they are duty bound to do everything they can to advocate for

I think it is important to remember that elected representatives are analogous to legal counsel—- they are duty bound to do everything they can to advocate for the wishes of their clients or constituents. The constituents who elect public servants do not make their decisions lightly (perhaps the economy of a certain district would benefit from more liberalized industrial emission regulations). It doesn’t matter if the public servants believe what they say, they know they have to advocate these policies to best serve their constituents.

maxxxxx 8y ago
The question is who they view as their constituents. Often it's not the voters but only a very small subset. In modern Washington politics they will also put the priorities of their party above the voters.
- basementcat 8y ago
  Public servants (in the USA, regardless of party) who do not have the support of a majority their (voting) constituents seldom keep their jobs past the next election.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    You still can misinform the majority of the constituents to stay in line with the interests of the small number of the people you really listen to. I would argue this is happening with health care, tax cuts and a lot of subsidies.
    - bradknowles 8y ago
      That's pretty much all politics, for the history of mankind. Nothing new there.
telchar 8y ago
That's one way of looking at it. Alternately, and just as valid if not more so, they're duty bound to do what's best for their constituents. Ideally, that aligns with the wishes of the constituents, but the constituents may be ignorant, misinformed, or willing to cut off their nose to spite their neighbor. Arguably the main reason to have representatives vs direct democracy is that the constituents' wishes should not always dictate law and policy.

4 ms·

I think it is important to remember that elected representatives are analogous to legal counsel—- they are duty bound to do everything they can to advocate for

by basementcat 8y ago

maxxxxx 8y ago
The question is who they view as their constituents. Often it's not the voters but only a very small subset. In modern Washington politics they will also put the priorities of their party above the voters.
- basementcat 8y ago
  Public servants (in the USA, regardless of party) who do not have the support of a majority their (voting) constituents seldom keep their jobs past the next election.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    You still can misinform the majority of the constituents to stay in line with the interests of the small number of the people you really listen to. I would argue this is happening with health care, tax cuts and a lot of subsidies.
    - bradknowles 8y ago
      That's pretty much all politics, for the history of mankind. Nothing new there.
telchar 8y ago
That's one way of looking at it. Alternately, and just as valid if not more so, they're duty bound to do what's best for their constituents. Ideally, that aligns with the wishes of the constituents, but the constituents may be ignorant, misinformed, or willing to cut off their nose to spite their neighbor. Arguably the main reason to have representatives vs direct democracy is that the constituents' wishes should not always dictate law and policy.