Quote:
|
They are bound to vote as their constituents want them to vote. If they stop doing that, vote their sorry asses out of office.
|
A small but important distinction here. It is true that if the representative's performance doesn't satisfy a majority of the electorate, s/he is in danger of being defeated in the next election. But a representative is NOT bound to vote the way the constituents want. S/he is bound to uphold the Constitution (whatever that means) and fulfill the duties of office to the best of his/her ability (whatever that means). The wisdom, experience, judgment, and common sense of the legislator have everything to do with the votes s/he casts. Senators don't (and shouldn't) just take a poll before voting on every bill. If they did, we could do away with the Senate and just have national referendums on everything.
Edit: The fact that the writers of the Constitution thought personal experience and wisdom was important in elected officials is illustrated by the age requirements for office. Why should representatives have to be over 25, senators over 30, and presidents over 35, unless the founders believed that the more power an official holds, the more experience he needs to use it wisely?
In my opinion, Lott's remarks cast a lot of doubt on his wisdom, experience, judgment, and common sense, as well as on his empathy. The majority of every senator's constituency is non-voters, including children, mentally disabled people, immigrants, and prison inmates, as well as the millions of adult citizens who aren't registered or don't vote. A good senator thinks about all their opinions, not just the opinions of those constituents who will control future elections.
(Due to the way campaigns are structured and funded, it actually takes overwhelming voter disapproval to unseat an incumbent, not just the dissatisfaction of the majority, but that's a separate thread.)
Ivy