|
a philosophical question
My ex-husband and I used to argue about a basic philosophy of elected officials and how they should vote. He feels that we elect someone who thinks like we do and trust them to always vote for what they believe, regardless of what their constituents want. I always felt that the elected official should take into consideration what their constituents want and vote accordingly. For example, there was a big controversy in my area about a development company coming in and building on swamp lands. The community was completely against it. It seems to me, in a situation like that, that the elected official should fight it, even if they don't place a priority on environmental issues most of the time. So, if a politician received thousands of letters about a certain stance and then votes in accordance with that policy, even if it isn't how he personally feels, is that waffling or is it representing his constituents? What does a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" really mean?
Dee
|
Hybrid Mode
