The Glade 4.0

Just curious what y'all think.

*Edit: See the discussion below re the meaning of "representative democracy", but for purposes of the poll, I'm talking about the United States system of government, whatever you want to call it. Basically, I want to know how you think a legislator, in the US context, should vote on a policy issue if he disagrees with his constituents' preferences.

Should probably start with a description of Democracy versus Republic.

By thinks X is best, does that mean best for the country or his/her personal preference/etc?

_________________

I don't think that distinction is necessary here, Ladas, as the poll refers to "representative democracy," not "Democracy" (i.e. not direct democracy).

RD:

As you've asked the question, in a Representitive Democracy, a representitive is obligated to cast his vote with his constituents.

However, we don't have a Representitive Democracy in America. We have a representitive Republic. In a Representitive Republic, you vote for the person who you think will best represent you, but what they vote for is what they feel will be best.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

/em points to the post above him.

Best for the country/state/whatever, not just for their own personal interests.

Rynar has the right of it.

Thus, my vote for vote like the constituents.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Can you provide a source for that definitional distinction, Rynar? My recollection from poli-sci comports with these Wiki entries:



Things get a little muddled in the US context:



But the reason for this muddle is that the American concept of "republic" is actually just "representative democracy":



Basically, it sounds like in the US, we use the phrase "republic" to mean "representative democracy plus Constitutional limits on what government can do".

I would vote as I believed. If the voters don't like the way I vote, they could vote me out next election. These people are leaders in a republican form of government as Rynar said. Leaders are supposed to lead, not follow the polls. They need convince their constituents why they voted a certain way and if they can't, their opponent (either through primary challenge or a general election) will win.

this

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

The people elect them to vote as the representative best believes, thats why character and personal belief matter and a person who votes as popular opinion shifts is not seen as a good rep.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmo, that would make sense of a representative republic, which is not what was inquired about.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Setting aside the technical debate of the proper usage of representative democracy. I voted for X. A representative has a duty to vote for what is in my best interest overall rather than what I prefer.

For example I would prefer that everyone in California cover the taxes of Ohio residents but my representative had better recognize that this is not in the best interest of the nation and vote accordingly.

After all isn't that essentially why we have a two-party system? If you had to elect someone based on your preference then there would be no political cohesion at all (100 way deadlock in the Senate) so you are forced to choose a political philosophy that most accurately reflects your values, beliefs and preferences.

_________________

I don't see that "what the consitutents prefer" is generally well-defined enough in the first place for the question to be meaningful.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

AAAAH!!!! SEMANTIC ARGUMENT!!!!

/runs screaming from the thread

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Do we have any other types here?

AHHH!!!! META ARGUMENT!!!!!

/flees again

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

My answer:

Either/both. That's up to the legislator to decide.

I have no problems with a guy voting for what he thinks is best, he'll answer to his constituents. He was, after all, chosen to represent their interests, not their whims. He was supposedly chosen because he's more knowlegable about the issues than the general public.

I also have no problems with a guy "selling out" because he gives the people what they want.

Personally, I think any legislator who's voting record is not a combination of both is probably not doing his job well.

Dismissing this argument as semantic is to argue disingenuously, as we are discussing two entirely different ideas and philosophies for forms of government. It is akin to dismissing the difference between a right turn and a left turn when giving directions as semantic because, after all, they are both turns.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Dismissing anything as semantics is just the modern way of pussying out of the conversation.



None of those indicate triviality. Indeed, the meaning of things is incredibly important. Hand-waving arguments away as "that's just semantics" is an utter failure to be willing to have reasonable discourse.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Arguing about what the OP meant when he said "Representative Democracy" instead of the difference in ideals between the two poll choices is a semantic argument, and dodges the actual question posed.

And the question, as posed, is "What does "representative democracy" mean to you?".

To me, that means a representative, duly elected by the people as an extension of his constituents will. Said representative should vote in the way his constituents desire.

"Representative Republic" is what we have in the US. And in such, a representative votes in the way that he believes is best for himself or his political interests, while lying to his constituents about it so he can maintain his position.

See? There's a distinct difference between the two.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

No, I answered the question as it was posed. I simply mean to clarify the intent. I also assert that in implying that what we have here is a Representitive Democracy, when a clear difference exists between what is implied and what actually is, intentionally muddies the water, and is one of the reasons for our slow decline in to the sorry state of affairs we have today.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I could not possibly agree more.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The point of language is to communicate, if two people are not talking about the same thing no progress can be made. Meaning must be a shared meaning otherwise it is pointless.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville