Comments | logopolys: Of legislative responsibility

logopolys

Of legislative responsibility

Apr 30, 2010 10:41

An issue has crossed my mind recently. I've lightly debated a few people on it, and I seem to be in a minority opinion about it. The issue concerns the voting responsibility of an elected legislator.

Does a legislator have a responsibility to vote on policy the way he feels his constituency would want him to vote on that issue?
Alternatively, ( Read more... )

Comments 8

skygawker April 30 2010, 17:06:54 UTC

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I prefer the second option. A lawmaker will (one hopes) have studied the issue in depth and understand more of the impact of a yes or a no vote. Understanding these issues is easily enough to fill a full-time job (indeed, they have staffers to do it for them a lot of the time) and the public frankly does not usually understand. That's the truth. Some members of the public will, of course, and some issues are more about a choice that should be made by the public no matter what the consequences are, but then, the legislator should be able to understand which votes are this sort and which are not. And if they feel they can not vote on something because of their conscience, they should go with their conscience. There are reasons our system isn't a direct democracy, and it's not only because the Founding Fathers didn't have the Internet ( ... )

fleurdelivre May 1 2010, 02:37:19 UTC

you're discussing the delegate versus trustee models of legislature, which actually have an entire literature within political theory and ethics. if you're really thinking a great deal about the theoretical underpinnings (rather than practical policy to impact behavior), I recommend Political Ethics and Public Office by Dennis Thompson.

If you're looking to write policy, you've got to start with something constitutional. They don't let us wonkish types run around tweaking it just because we have cool ideas :)

logopolys May 1 2010, 02:41:01 UTC

I'm glad I now have a name for what I'm discussing. Delegate and trustee sound much better than choice one and choice two.

Frankly, I'd be bothered if they let us wonkish types tweak the law, tho' I am a little disappoint. I really felt I had a future as a wonkish law tweaker.

I'll have to check out that book. A page turner?

fleurdelivre May 1 2010, 21:50:39 UTC

Page turner - funny. It's pretty dry but very thorough, and 'twas assigned for my ethics course last fall (nice to know we wonkish types at least have some training there, no?)

fleurdelivre May 1 2010, 21:52:56 UTC

Also, we do get to tweak the law, just not so much the Constitution. Who do you think all those geeks running around Capitol Hill ARE, anyway? (Did you see the NYT article on "Obama's Twenty-somethings"? One is a K-school alumna :) )

woodyallen66 May 2 2010, 18:15:28 UTC

I think both options have some value, but I must choose the first in our system. Simply put, they are a public servant, and when they place their ideas above the people, it will rarely be for higher reasons. Instead, they shall do so for financial gain. Just look at the Republican representatives, who even if bills would benefit there people, will reject them out of hand, knowing that their bread is buttered by business interests and not the people ( ... )

logopolys May 2 2010, 22:48:02 UTC

I acknowledge that a trustee style legislator might put his ideas above the people's, but that's why we have reelection. I think most people forget how important they are to fixing government, just as I think most politicians are too concerned about them to use government to fix things.

I don't think that the salary issue really is an issue. If you become a legislator for the money, that's probably the wrong reason to begin with. You say it would attract lessor candidates; I think it would attract more interested candidates.

My plan isn't a good plan, but it was one example of how we could motivate politicians to be less concerned with reelection.

I think Madison's plan for a trustee model backfired and became a delegate model when America got too big. The federal government might need to reassess its goals as an institution before we start rewriting the Constitution for extreme term limits or a parliamentary system or something else.

Dammit, that last paragraph sounded a little too libertarian for my liking.

woodyallen66 May 3 2010, 00:41:58 UTC

I think history shows that reelection is a very chancy way of replacing politicians who do not act in the people's interests. Just look at all the Republicans who get reelected, or Edwin Edwards, who won four terms as governor and picked the state clean. In all these cases they act as trustee would, albeit selfishly, but pretend to be delegates ( ... )