Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(19)
- ► 08/31 - 09/07 (3)
- ► 09/07 - 09/14 (3)
- ▼ 09/21 - 09/28 (3)
- ► 10/05 - 10/12 (5)
- ► 10/19 - 10/26 (1)
- ► 11/16 - 11/23 (4)
John Locke
Our "1776 - The Musical" Blog
27 comments:
A Congressman, or Congresswoman, is a person elected bythe people to represent their likes and dislikes, their wants and wishes. Therefore, a member of Congress should vote the way the people who elected him or her would want them to vote, instead of being swayed by personal opinion.
i agree with charlotte de berry, that senators and representitives are elected to represent the people that elected them, and they should argue, vote, and fight on those peoples' behalfs, and not nessasairly their own, even if they believe it is in the intrest of the common good. if he were to vote not in the favor of the people who elected him, he would be doing them a disservice and, in my eyes, he would have failed them as their voice in the congress.
I disagree. If a member of congress vote against the people in which they are representing, that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't protecting the greater good of the people. Take an issue like the economic bailout proposal. I bet that the majority of our nation doesn't understand much about the economy, not because they are unintelligent, but simply because it is so complex. Now say a state is polled and they are all for the proposal. if the congressman that is representing them, and is more informed about the economy and proposal, decides that they do not belive the proposal is good, then that congressman is not betraying his people. It's like when your mom or dad sets a rule that you and your siblings can't stand, they aren't trying to hurt you, in the long run they are trying to do what's best for you.
However, when a parent sets a rule, that rule is not supposed to be broken for a certain reason. Having a congressman vote against the people's wishes is not at all like having a parent protect a child; a congressman is not a parent, with elevated authority and wisdom above that of their childs. A congressman voting against the people is like a school team voting on the uniforms, and then the captain ordering the exact one that they did not want. I don't imagine that would go over well.
The congressmen represent their state, which is just a small part of a big country. The country should be the first concern because it is the state's responsibility to change according to the interests of the country and not the other way around. If that were the case then this country would divide into 50 smaller countries all just worried about their own little worlds. If all a congressman could do was regurgitate whatever his state told him then anybody could be in congress, because they would never have to make any decisions on their own. Should our senators oppose fish exporting restrictions in RI if someone discovered that Narragansett Bay was polluted with some sort of deadly chemical?
Since the congressman has been voted for by the people, he was meant to represent there wants as best he could. So if all the congressman vote the way there states lean, the majority is represented, and it should be about what the people want. Majoritys opinion should win.
Politicians generally know more about public issues better than the average person. They know the pros and cons of certain situations and are smart people, or they wouldn't have made it so far in their career. The politician's job is to help and protect the people by using his/her knowledge,power and better judgment. The people's opinion should influence the politician's initial decision, but the politician must make the final call.
I definitely think that a member of Congress should vote against the greater common good to accurately represent the voters who have elected them, because that is the only way in which the voters can have a voice in Congress. By not agreeing with what the represented want, they are taking away their rights to vote, which leads to an undemocratic government. This is a right that all American citizens have and it is not at all right to have someone take it away from them.
I agree with Black Lizzy that going against the people they are represnting doesn't mean they are looking out for the common good. I think the representative should consider what the people they are representing want but if the representative feels that it wouldn't be best for them in the long run they should vote against it. The representative would know more about the issue than the average person they are representing. The people picked that representative to make decisions for them with knowledge and to do what the representative thinks would be best.
I agree with black lizzy, If the congressman/congresswoman is more knowledgable in a subject than those that they support, they should be able to vote for thier beliefs. It is the job of the people to elect a reppresentitive that knows what they are talking about and if the people cant elect someone who will do the best job thats there fault.
I believe that a member of congress should not vote based on their personal opinion but for the majority of the peoples opinion of which they are representing. It is a congress members job to represent the people not his/her self. That is why we hold elections so one person can give their opinion on a matter. Black Lizzy has a good point that most people are not educated on all situations but that doesn't mean that their congressman should make the decision for them. Ultimately it's the peoples choice on how they want to vote on a situation not their congressman. If the congressman always knows what's best for the people why even ask the people in the first place.
I am on the side that it is okay for a member of congress to vote against what the people of his state want him to do. What if their likes/dislikes and oppinions are against the common good and the congressmen knows it is. He could not vote against the common good he should vote what is good for America as a whole.
I think a member of congress has the duty and responsibility to vote for whatever his/her people have decided on. Hopefully he/she has the same views, but even if they don't, they should still vote with the people they represent. They are only one person, as opposed to an entire state, full with people with opinions.
The representatives job is in their name- to represent. Represent their people, but also their personal beliefs. The people chose these people because they trust them to make an educated decision on what is right for those people. If they don't like these decisions, they should never have chosen them in the first place.
As a member of congress and senate they were elected by the people. They know what the people want and the people don't want. If they didnt know they wouldnt have won the election. That person in congress or senate should then obviously vote the way the people elected that said person to vote. If the person didnt vote the way the public wanted well then they just used the power for personal gain.
For this question I have to result to the support of that wonderful musical, "1776". In the movie, representitive from Georgia, Dr. Hall who although he was for independence, he voted "nay" against it because "Georgia" was against independence. However, after thinking on it he says: "In trying to resolve my dilemma I remembered something I'd once read, 'that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.' It was written by Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament." He walks over to the tally board and changes Georgia's vote from "nay" to "yea". I must now agree with balck lizzy, capn' seabeard, peg leg elena, etc. that it is up to the conressmen to make the final call. Considering the peoples' opinions and doing his best to promote the common good is the responsibility of our Congressmen; this is the reason we vote and choose a Congressmen we trust to make the right decision even when we may not understand.
The job of the congressman and congresswomen is to speak up for the people who they are representing. It doesn't matter what the vast majority is voting for and what they personally want, their job is to represent the people who have voted for them to speak their opinions.
I believe that a congress member should vote for whatever they are for. The people who voted him or her into office should have known there stance on issues, and by voting know that they have their best intrests in hand. Just because a group of people vote for the person does not necisarally mean that they must vote in there behalf everytime. The job of a congress peson is to vote in they way that they see best suited for the people.
Very tough to choose a side here, but I'll have to support the idea here that a member of Congess has the right to cast the final vote. As Black Lizzy was the first to point out, citizens that a Congress member is representing are not always up on all the facts, effects, et cetera, of what they've voted on, while the representative is (or SHOULD be). Mabel Jefferies makes a good point that it is indeed a Congress member's job to represent others' opinions, the trouble is often that there's an issue that the majority that voted the official into office is against (for example) while the member of Congress happens to be for it. Granted in this case that the official is NOT corrupt, there is bound to be a group of people under the representative that agrees with his/her decision. That entire part was a bit ramble-y, but I just want to say that the majority opinion can't always be taken as authority as, without key information, things can go wrong when the majority thinks they understand everything set in front of them. A member of Congress must not only represent as their job is to do, but also make the best decisions when things are up in the air and they see that people are not well informed. That's not a hard thing to find out; some polls here and there, some changed opinions after knowing more about the issue...not that anyone has the time to make or take a poll anymore, but that's just an example.
The Congress' ultimate goal is to do what is right for the people. It may be true that all of the people are not necessarily informed on each and every detail of what the Congress chooses to do, however, it is the duty of the people to organize and elect the Congress that they can truly believe and trust to choose what is best for them. Now if a majority of people are against one thing while the minority is for it, it is ultimately decided by the Congress. They may not choose what the majority proposes because it may not be what they feel is best. This is where the people have trust in the Congress because they people in congress are much more informed of the details and what they could possibly lead to.
I agree that it's the congress's duty to protect the greater good of the people. Most of the time, a congressman is going to be a lot more educated on a topic in congress then a normal civilian who just picks something because of the name. Or they simply have not been informed properly on the subject. They need to protect people and make the right choice. They probably know more about the subject and know whats right! It's these men and women's jobs to know about the topics there voting on, so they need to know more!
The member of congress should accurately represent the voters who have elected him or her even if it is against the greater common good. The voters have their own common good, which may be different from the greater common good. The only way to determine the greater common good (CG) is if everyone presents their own CG to determine the opinion of the majority. The member of congress the voters have elected should always vote what the people want, because that is what's best for them
A member of Congress should vote against the greater common good if it is what the people that elected him/her want them to do. They would not be in the position they are in without the election from those same people. This is also why i feel as though congress should be a majority vote wins rather than unanimous. If the members of congress vote how their people would want them to and the decisions are based on majority, it would be more of the people's vote than the personal opinions of a bunch of congress members
Wow.....hard topic. I suppose "the greater common good" would be based on ones opinion. And since they are indeed voted for by the people, FOR the people...I would say they would have to ignore what they felt was the common good, and represent the people they were choosen to represent.
a member of congress's responsibliilty is to vote for the greater good. in most definitions this means voting based on the people he/she represents. however, that isn't some pass where the congressman can just vote for what the people want. that doesn't neccessarily mean it's best for them or the greater good. those of you who say they're their to represent don't accept the role of classical republicanism in the duties of a congressman. a representative owes his people not only their voice in congress but his own logic.
Due to the definition of "common good" being somewhat debatable, it is nessecary to sometimes vote against the common good if that means you are doing waht the majority of the people that voted for you believe in, and voted you in office for. Even if you become aware of how it affects the common good, then after bringing it up to those you represent, you shouldstill only stand for what the majority votes. It is more important to have government officials stay honest and do what the people that voted for them want,because otherwise it is not a democracy at all
Due to the definition of "common good" being somewhat debatable, it is nessecary to sometimes vote against the common good if that means you are doing waht the majority of the people that voted for you believe in, and voted you in office for. Even if you become aware of how it affects the common good, then after bringing it up to those you represent, you shouldstill only stand for what the majority votes. It is more important to have government officials stay honest and do what the people that voted for them want,because otherwise it is not a democracy at all
Post a Comment