The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

What I mean by that is...

It seems that these days, we elect leaders based on their own opinions and views on matters concerning the country, states, and local districts. Whatever their opinion, we expect them to vote based on their own views. If they disagree with the majority view of their constituency, we don't expect them to go against their own point of view and vote with the people, but to vote against the people.

When did our politicians become those who represent themselves?

When did they stop representing the people and only those who voted for them?

What do you think they ought to be doing?

Is this a representative democracy (Republic) or what?!

It has to be a combination of both.  There are some cases where one cannot vote against their own conscience.  (Let's say on an issue like war.) 

There may be other times where the representative might disagree that a particular piece of legislation is a good one, but there is overwhelming support from their constituency.  I think in a case where public opinion is clear and overwhelming, a representative has an obligation to do the will of the people.

A good leader has the wisdom to know the difference.

EDIT:  The representative must also be prepared to bear the consequences of their actions.  For example, if they supported the Iraq War against their own conscience because their constituency was caught up in the post-911 hysteria, they must live with the fact that they are partly responsible for thousands of deaths and the bleeding of our economy through ridiculous levels of government spending.

On the other hand, if they vote their own views, they must face their constituents at the next election.

I always enjoyed this quote from Edmund Burke, a member of Parliament...

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

I remember this from the movie "1776", quoted by Dr Lyman Hall (GA) after deciding to vote in favor of the Declaration of Independence. 

We are, in theory, a representative democratic republic, but once one advocate in Washington, Harrisburg, county seat or city hall starts voting for their own welfare before that of the electorate, I feel it is a breach of trust and breach of contract.  I have been e-mailing or calling my rep at the different levels to voice my opinion, but seldom get any feedback other than "thank you for contacting me" form letter / form e-mail.  If they vote against my wishes too often, then they won't get my vote, and I let them know it.

I am not talking about issues that the people are split on or where it is of critical nature, such as war. I am talking about issues like immigration where greater than 90 percent of the people don't want amnesty (McCain) and others where the vast majority of the people want something and yet the government goes the other way with it.

The concept of an elected representative, is that not everyone has the time to be fully educated on the issues. We supposedly elect people who agree with us in principal, and anticipate that they will be informed and use their best judgment to apply principals to legislative decisions.

Elections have become negative activities, more people are voting against candidates they hate, than voting for candidates they like. This frees the politician from any responsibility to the voter, because the voter did not vote FOR anything. Too many Democrats could never vote for a Republican and too many Republicans can not ever vote for a Democrat.

Obama's campaign is that he is not George Bush. Mc Cain's campaign is that he's not Obama. I hope Bob Barr runs on issues.

Samantha