English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

12 answers

we have a representative government, not a democratic government. People are elected to represent the public. What are they suppose to do, take a vote of the public everytime an issue comes up? Or maybe you think they should listen to the polls? Yea, there's a place for political maniulation.

2007-05-22 03:35:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

This is not a straightforward question.

They are elected as representatives and are there to do what they consider best for the electorate. This may not always be the same as the people think is best for the electorate. They may well have access to information the general public does not have. It may be a more rational approach.

For instance, Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon and ended any chance he had of being elected because the people wanted Nixon to stand trial. However, Ford did it because it was necessary to heal a divided nation. Now, it is generally agreed he did the right thing but at the time he was hammered for it.

The answer to the people disagreeing with those they elect is to not re-elect them. Just as Ford was not elected.

2007-05-22 03:42:21 · answer #2 · answered by Elizabeth Howard 6 · 0 0

They should do what is best for the people they represent . No , that doesn't mean they should conduct a poll of their respective districts , but they should keep in mind when making a decision , their decision will affect the lives of not only their district but others as well. Unfortunately , an elected official doing that is a pure utopian fantasy . they always have someone calling the shots behind closed doors , especially in local politics .

2007-05-22 04:26:31 · answer #3 · answered by mikemnj8111 2 · 0 0

We supposedly live in a democratic republic, which means that the people elect representatives to rule.

A pure democracy would be where the people rule.

Our elected officials don't do what they think is best for the people; they only think of what might be best for themselves, or for those campaign contributors who keep them in their plush offices. It's time to impeach all of our elected officials and start over again. -RKO- 05/22/07

2007-05-22 03:42:05 · answer #4 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 0

The point of an elected official is that his judgement is trusted by those who elected him. If we simply wanted things to be done by the will of the people, we have the technology to let them vote on it. We delegate authority to representatives on the assumption that as professional politicians they will be able to focus on issues we don't have time to spend researching. They will know more than we do, and will make more informed decisions. If we trusted a person enough to elect them, we should trust them to vote their conscience.

Someone like LBJ or Bush Sr., who made unpopular decisions they knew were right.

2007-05-22 03:37:22 · answer #5 · answered by Mark 2 · 0 0

I think they should do what they tell their constituents they are going to do and whatever image they created in the campaign to gain votes. I don't think people have trouble with a politician standing up for their ethics if they explain it that way and realize that they may lose their seat for doing so. The problem comes when officials vote politically for personal gain and for national power politics and try to spin it into something noble. Like when they vote against tariffs, knowing it will cost thousands of jobs in their district, just because the national party wants it done to protect a lobbyist or big money contributor. It was a Dem Congress that sent this country to war in Iraq and many of the people running on the Dem ticket voted for the war. Did they vote their conscience or politics when they voted for the war? Now, of course, we have spin and you hear barking dogs saying that Bush lied and people believe that so that they don't have to face the reality that the Dems sent us to war as much as Bush. You don't have to look far to see people chanting that political slogan . The basic problem with your question is that you are assuming that there will ever be a person in national office with ethics OR conscience. Haven't seen that since Harry Truman (who did what he said and took the heat).

2007-05-22 03:37:00 · answer #6 · answered by Tom W 6 · 0 0

Our system of government is a representative republic. Our control basically ends after the vote except letting them know how we feel and that we will vote them out if not happy with their decisions.
We are all supposed to vote for people that we trust and then hope they do their job. The best we can do is always vote for men and women with good moral and ethical values and trust they will do their best for us.

2007-05-22 03:51:16 · answer #7 · answered by GABY 7 · 0 0

When we elect our representatives, we tell them to lead us as best they can, following sound judgment. Therefore the will of the people is exercised when we either re-elect them or find someone else!

2007-05-22 05:21:37 · answer #8 · answered by sham805 1 · 0 0

I think they should mostly do the will of the people. But I also think that there are some very rare occasions where they should follow their instinct. Because we have to remember that sometimes Congress might know some sort of confidential information that could be disastrous for our country. But usually they should do the will of the people.

2007-05-22 03:32:51 · answer #9 · answered by Kirsten R 2 · 0 1

They should do the will of the people.

.

2007-05-22 03:34:54 · answer #10 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers