The Will of the Elected vs. the Electorate

I may not agree with the current HC Bill, but I wish there were more people in office like him, willing to think for themselves and risk not getting elected or reelected. If there were, there would be less risk of there not being reelected. (Is the #1 job of a politician to get reelected?)

I have to believe those who voted this man into office believed he possessed a conscience and wouldn't be afraid to use it.

Clarification: He was appointed by the CO Gov. I hope he has a shot at being elected next year. Problem is, if he doesn't tow the party line closely enough, as would endanger a R or a D.

I didn't realize he was an appointee, however my response was to the question posed by Pete:

It’s an age-old question: If elected to public office, is it your primary duty to vote your conscience, or vote the conscience of a majority of your constituents, even if the latter runs counter to the former?

It's great question btw, although I can see how the answer may be more complex in the case of Sen. Bennet.

This is a fine subject if studied, or applied, earnestly. (The example all of us know or should know, since learning about it long ago as children in school, is Edmund Ross of Kansas.)

Sadly, it's usually tainted and an example of misused language, in seeking passage of controversial or bad legislation (as the Dems have done this year) or more generally, such as when referring to voting to raise taxes. "Courage"....

(The following author even did a good job with his subtitle, an allusion to a famous relevent book.)

http://mises.org/econsense/ch60.asp

It is an interesting question, and as with a lot of interesting questions, I don't think the answer is clear-cut one way or the other.

I think in some cases you can make an argument that voting one way is the "right" thing to do. In that case I think it's the duty of the policymaker to do the "right" thing.

However, there are other cases where there isn't necessarily a "right" thing. The question is just what the people want. For example (a bad one, it's late), do the people want big government or small government? I can see an argument that both a big or a small government could work out, but would have different effects on the people. Big government would limit freedom but theoretically ensure more fairness in the system. Small government would allow more freedom but as a consequence would be limited in its ability to intervene when something happens that is unfair to one party or another. In that case, there is an element of "what is right?", but there is also an element of "what do the people want? what do you value more: freedom or fairness?".

So, in short, I think it depends on the question being considered (and even then it is not a clear-cut answer, as it isn't with the health care debate which could be framed in either way -- "what is right?" or "what do the people want?")

In addition to the foregoing, consider the reaction to this tension (between doing the right thing -- as opposed to doing the "right," PC, etc., thing -- and doing what the people want). This has always been at the core (heart) of divided thoughts about appointed and serving-for-life positions versus elected positions, and "at-large" positions (in Washington, purporting to represent or serve all the people at once, as a whole) versus multiple positions (which is not limited to the traditional area representation smaller than the entire nation or "at-large," such as districts, but which also includes proportional representation as opposed to winner-take-all).

I have no problem with the man's choice, reminds me of Joe Liebermann.

Maybe in the next three to seven years some of these people might discard their bogus and evasive or euphemistic (for evasive reasons) nomenclature, like "progressive," "centrist," or "moderate," and admit openly they're liberal, as some on this site have and I've sometimes (rarely) heard admitted on the air.