Elected Representatives: What Exactly Do They Represent?

**Justinian** · March 22, 2010, 11:22 AM

As the healthcare bill blasted its way through Congress pissing on Republicans everywhere, a genuine political issue actually rose from all the hyperbole and rubbish they spewed all over the American people. What could that possibly be, you say? Well, here's what's on my mind: Republicans constantly said that "the American people are against this bill" (which is a fabrication) and that Democrats who voted for the bill were voting against the will of their constituents and had no right to do so. This raises an ideological question: do elected representatives represent their OWN views, or the views of their constituents? What SHOULD they be representing?

Here's the thing: elected representatives are not there to represent YOU. That is, in fact, not how a representative democracy works; in a direct democracy, YOUR viewpoints and choices would be made directly by YOUR vote. People assume this is the same way it works in a representative democracy, but let me ask you a question:
If we were electing puppets to mirror the viewpoints of their constituency, why does it matter what party the person we are electing is from? Why should we care if a member of the House of Representatives, or a US Senator, is a Republican or a Democrat? Pro-gay rights or anti-gay rights? "Pro life" or "pro choice"? If we were electing them solely to parrot our own viewpoints and not their own, we could pick any reasonably intelligent person off the block and they would actively say what we, the majority of their constituents in their area, want them to say. You'll notice this is not what happens, or what has EVER happened.

When you vote, how do you choose between candidates? If you're a shallow moron you vote based on looks, how good they can talk American (dur hur), et cetera. But if you're smart and doing your actual democratic duty, you choose between candidates based on THEIR viewpoints, do you not? If you are pro-choice, you vote for the guy who is also pro-choice and not the guy who is rabidly "pro-life". Why? Because you are choosing them based on how you think they will vote.

If we put people in office to directly represent our own viewpoints then we wouldn't care about whether or not our representatives are in a political party. We would simply vote for whoever and make them promise to directly ask us what they want us to do. We would literally have to have a public vote on every single thing and then our representative would vote along whatever we voted for. That's a direct democracy.

We are not a direct democracy. When we vote for someone, we give them the power to represent us through their own viewpoints, and ostensibly we assume that their viewpoints and ours match up enough that what they do is what we want done. But they do not just parrot the views of their constituents; they vote based on their own convictions, and we gave them the mandate to do so.

**~~Exarch~~** · March 22, 2010, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian

When you vote, how do you choose between candidates? .

i vote based on election promises, screw what they look like, which whore they

ed, which bathroom stall they engaged in rough gay sex, what religious views or lack thereof etc etc.

in fact i had a thread before where i opined that i regard an election promise as a sacred thing considering i'm giving this guy a good paying job via my vote because of the election promise.

**roy34543** · March 22, 2010, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Exarch

i vote based on election promises, screw what they look like, which whore they

ed, which bathroom stall they engaged in rough gay sex, what religious views or lack thereof etc etc.

in fact i had a thread before where i opined that i regard an election promise as a sacred thing considering i'm giving this guy a good paying job via my vote because of the election promise.

They have a hundred other factors other then any campaign promises they have to figure into their head....

**~~Exarch~~** · March 22, 2010, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by roy34543

They have a hundred other factors other then any campaign promises they have to figure into their head....

there'll always be wedge issues which wily politicians try to divide the voting public

you find how they feel about xyz issue, and pick the one least repugnant; then you've got your man

.

back in NSW, oz, we had a petition to have a more direct form of state government since we'd experienced no less than 3 changes in offices from the person we'd originally elected into office.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...1210-kmbf.html

**Justinian** · March 22, 2010, 11:52 AM

Well, either way you're voting based on what you think about how they think, not how you think

**Manco** · March 22, 2010, 11:55 AM

Politicians should vote according to their own views, since they were elected on a program that was made clear beforehand. If the voter mistakenly thought you wore of such opinion, but are instead of that opinion, it's the voters' own fault for not electing someone who really was of their mind.

**Chlodwig I.** · March 22, 2010, 11:57 AM

They represent the Companies that donated the most money for their election campaign.

**roy34543** · March 22, 2010, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Chlodwig I.

They represent the Companies that donated the most money for their election campaign.

Why? Because they think that bigger posters will win them more votes? Companies are formed by people and those people tend to vote for the interests that benefit their company.

**Boer** · March 22, 2010, 02:26 PM

I also get tired of people yelling "we are a republic, not a direct democracy" and then the same people complaining that representatives are not simply rubber-stamping the will of the people. Typically my friends who have this problem are simply spouting what some TV personalities say and never take time to actually think about what they are saying.

**Jingles** · March 22, 2010, 06:16 PM

representative democracy is inherently undemocratic by nature, but I think we all sort of know that it's a compromise more than anything else. In such a system, politicians don't represent the will of the people so much as they run around trying to get people to support their will, and their motives.

I was discussing this very topic with a German friend of mine, and he provided me with a copy of a speech he gave recently at his college. Here's an extract:

What is democracy? The word "democracy" is derived from the Greek terms demos, meaning "people", and krateia, meaning "power". So, it follows, that in a democratic society, power shouldn't be held by tyrants, dictators or monarchs, but by all the people together. Here, at school, in television, in books and in newspapers, we are regularly told that we live in a democracy, that we should be grateful to live in a democracy, and that our lifes are as nice as they are, because we live in a democracy. When we ask what it is that makes our society democratic, we're given the answer that Germany is democratic because we are allowed to vote for one of several parties every four years, which then exercise power on the behalf of the people. They are supposed to rule in a way that the majority of the people agree with. This is what they call "representative democracy", or "parliamentary democracy".

But even though Germany claims to be democratic, something must be going wrong here. Let me just give you an obvious example - the majority of Germans oppose the war in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the majority of our representatives have recently extended the mandate of the Bundeswehr, to fight a war that only a minority of the German people agree with. Why can this happen? It happens because parliamentary, or representative democracy is not democratic. It happens because the "representatives" in such a democracy are not bound by anybody to enforce the will of those they represent. Instead, they enforce the will of those who have money, like the current ruling parties did, when they received, on the whole, nearly one and a half billion euros from the hotel industry. To show the hotel industry how grateful they were, the FDP/CDU coalition lowered taxes for hotels and restaurants, in order to give them higher profits.

The system is easy to understand. If political power rests in representatives, who can freely decide how to rule the country, it's no problem at all to buy their votes if you have enough money. And so, we see that, in fact, the whole political system we live in is made to meet the needs of those who have enough money. Our "democracy" is, in reality, nothing else than the rule of the rich. For example, you all know that it's illegal to download music from the internet. Still, I'm sure that all of you have downloaded music from the internet, or listened to copied CDs. Still, we're forbidden to do this. Why? They say that the people are in power here, but still, they criminalize huge numbers of them. The reason is easy to understand - if we listen to music without paying, we ruin their profits. That is the single reason why "music piracy", as they call it, is forbidden.

As the saying goes, the fact that a slave can choose a new master every 4 years makes him no less a slave.

**~~Exarch~~** · March 22, 2010, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Jingle_Bombs

representative democracy is inherently undemocratic by nature, but I think we all sort of know that it's a compromise more than anything else. In such a system, politicians don't represent the will of the people so much as they run around trying to get people to support their will, and their motives.

I was discussing this very topic with a German friend of mine, and he provided me with a copy of a speech he gave recently at his college. Here's an extract:

As the saying goes, the fact that a slave can choose a new master every 4 years makes him no less a slave.

exactly
and this is the supposedly superior system we wish to enforce on the rest of the world; heretics of OUR WAY (of government) are labelled rogue States

**roy34543** · March 22, 2010, 06:20 PM

Well to be honest, While representative democracy is arguably the rule of the rich , at least the rich tend to be sensible, The average voter tends to be just as greedy and a thousand times less well-versed in politics.

**RVFVS** · March 22, 2010, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Justinian

As the healthcare bill blasted its way through Congress pissing on Republicans everywhere, a genuine political issue actually rose from all the hyperbole and rubbish they spewed all over the American people. What could that possibly be, you say? Well, here's what's on my mind: Republicans constantly said that "the American people are against this bill" (which is a fabrication) and that Democrats who voted for the bill were voting against the will of their constituents and had no right to do so. This raises an ideological question: do elected representatives represent their OWN views, or the views of their constituents? What SHOULD they be representing?

Here's the thing: elected representatives are not there to represent YOU. That is, in fact, not how a representative democracy works; in a direct democracy, YOUR viewpoints and choices would be made directly by YOUR vote. People assume this is the same way it works in a representative democracy, but let me ask you a question:
If we were electing puppets to mirror the viewpoints of their constituency, why does it matter what party the person we are electing is from? Why should we care if a member of the House of Representatives, or a US Senator, is a Republican or a Democrat? Pro-gay rights or anti-gay rights? "Pro life" or "pro choice"? If we were electing them solely to parrot our own viewpoints and not their own, we could pick any reasonably intelligent person off the block and they would actively say what we, the majority of their constituents in their area, want them to say. You'll notice this is not what happens, or what has EVER happened.

When you vote, how do you choose between candidates? If you're a shallow moron you vote based on looks, how good they can talk American (dur hur), et cetera. But if you're smart and doing your actual democratic duty, you choose between candidates based on THEIR viewpoints, do you not? If you are pro-choice, you vote for the guy who is also pro-choice and not the guy who is rabidly "pro-life". Why? Because you are choosing them based on how you think they will vote.

If we put people in office to directly represent our own viewpoints then we wouldn't care about whether or not our representatives are in a political party. We would simply vote for whoever and make them promise to directly ask us what they want us to do. We would literally have to have a public vote on every single thing and then our representative would vote along whatever we voted for. That's a direct democracy.

We are not a direct democracy. When we vote for someone, we give them the power to represent us through their own viewpoints, and ostensibly we assume that their viewpoints and ours match up enough that what they do is what we want done. But they do not just parrot the views of their constituents; they vote based on their own convictions, and we gave them the mandate to do so.

Good post. And yes it is my opinion that real democracy died out long ago. America is a Republic, even worse they are a Party Dominant Republic. The Congressmen represent not the American people but the America parties. I long for the day when there were no parties.

**~~Exarch~~** · March 23, 2010, 04:00 AM

question: is american an oligarchy?
seems everyone in power these days tends to be either a kennedy, bush or Clinton

**Jabberwock** · March 23, 2010, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by Exarch

question: is american an oligarchy?
seems everyone in power these days tends to be either a kennedy, bush or Clinton

Career and ambition. You could say money, but money doesn't mean anything if you don't have the right career and ambition for the job. It's just an alignment of things.

Each individual within these "dynasties" that held elected positions was because their career was geared towards it.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · March 23, 2010, 04:36 AM

In the strictest sense a representative represents their constituents democratic will. This gets more complicated very quickly. Firstly because the representative, supposedly, has access to more facts regarding matters than constituents and can make a more informed decision. He has also been elected, as Justy says, for his views.

**Jom** · March 23, 2010, 04:47 AM

When you vote, how do you choose between candidates? If you're a shallow moron you vote based on looks, how good they can talk American (dur hur), et cetera. But if you're smart and doing your actual democratic duty, you choose between candidates based on THEIR viewpoints, do you not? If you are pro-choice, you vote for the guy who is also pro-choice and not the guy who is rabidly "pro-life". Why? Because you are choosing them based on how you think they will vote.

If we put people in office to directly represent our own viewpoints then we wouldn't care about whether or not our representatives are in a political party. We would simply vote for whoever and make them promise to directly ask us what they want us to do. We would literally have to have a public vote on every single thing and then our representative would vote along whatever we voted for. That's a direct democracy.

I'm afraid I can't speak for the American electoral system as I am British but what you are saying about democracy not really existing in its purest form also applies in the British electoral system of first past the post. Unfortunately, even if there are a large number of people who vote for a different party, if they are spread across a number of constituencies then these votes probably won't even count due to the nature of the system.

A public referendum on everything would be direct democracy but it would also be extremely slow democracy and seeing as politics is all about pragmatics, especially when it comes to the use of morals, the most pragmatic systems will generally win, hence the systems we have today.

Proportional representation can be seen as a step in the right direction but I think there will always be a system of elected officials due to the problems surrounding the referendum system such as fraud and just the whole logistics of the thing. I know I wouldn't want to constantly have to be going to vote on some issue that may not even concern me.

**Justinian** · March 23, 2010, 03:21 PM

I don't think anyone thinks a direct democracy could work on a national level. I don't think it ever has, in the entire course of history.

I just wanted to point out to all the people whining about the healthcare bill that the wishful thinking fantasy land and the reality are miles apart.

**Denny Crane!** · March 23, 2010, 05:20 PM

Representation.

1. Representing the needs of their party to stay in power. Perhaps not on an individual basis, but in a group way this IS no1.

2. Representing whoever funded their campaign.

3. Representing populist issues.

4. Representing Views of the democracy and interests of the people in a muddy messy mix.

**Ariovistus Maximus** · March 29, 2010, 02:14 PM

Great question; I've wondered that myself. Does the politician present his own views and we elect him for those views, or is he morally obligated to obey his consitutents?

I'd say that if a politician were obligated to reflect the voters, then there would be no need for representatives. All the people of a state would just have to vote over everything anyways. We would have to vote in order to decide what our candidate would vote. That doesn't make much sense.

So, whoever you vote for will do his own thing, and you want to elect someone who's thing is similar to your own. And if he misleads you or fails in his goals, try someone else. When you do this, candidates are forced to build a platform, and people who run for office tend to be people who share the basic views of major groups or parties.

My $0.02