Once in a while we at TMV like to toss out an intellectual question to our readers and I thought I’d give it a shot. If nothing else it will give my less devoted readers a chance to poke a little fun at me.
The issue is one that has been around since the beginnings of representative democracy. When you send someone to Sacramento or Washington (or wherever) how should they decide which way to vote on bills ?
Should they follow the views of the voters or should they vote the way they think they should ?
While we have some advocates on either side of the debate, it seems to me that the best concept is a balance. We elect people to public office because we don’t have the time to review and decide on each issue (though some towns in New England still do this on as many issues as possible).
Because of this I would not expect my representative to sit down with every single subject and consider what the voters would want. Most issues do not require such review and doing so would waste a lot of time.
On the other hand when there is a topic where the voters of a state or district clearly feel very strongly, then I think a good legislator reflects their views even if it means going against his own inclinations.
Of course this is often attacked as pandering, but it seems to me that on certain issues there is nothing wrong with that. You elect someone to be your representative so they should reflect your views.
So what do you think ?