Who would you want to represent you?

[Bobblehead]

Someone who listens to his constituency and votes as per their wishes

or

Someone intelligent/smart who you trust to try and do the "right thing"; even if that means going against the wish of the constituency.



And why?

[feartheflames]

The latter- I dont wants a Yes man/woman I would want someone who does what is best

[SportsJunky]

The former

[maverickeastwood]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

The former

+1

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I think the answer most people would actually give is both.

1) When I agree with what the rest of the constituents want, then we must be right, so I want someone who listens to us

2) When I don't agree with what the rest of the constituents want, then they must all be wrong, so my rep should vote the way I feel, and hence do what is right.

[octothorp]

You forgot option c:
Someone who votes however his party tells him to vote, because if he doesn't he'll lose whatever position he has and possibly be turfted by the party before the next election.

Unfortunately, almost every representative in the country falls into this category. My ideal would be #2, then #1.

[Ford Prefect]

Don't most politicians vote according to party lines, which trumps both their wishes and/or their constituents'?

Edit: octothorp beat me to it. Given the original two choices however, I'd prefer an elected official who votes according to constituents' wishes.

[Russic]

This has always been a conflicting issue for me. On one hand the basis of a democracy is to have a government run by the people (to a degree). However on the other hand, there are several politicians that I look up to because they made an unpopular decision.

I'm going to have to go with option b.

[Table 5]

I want someone who tells me what they are going to do, and then does it. I ellect politicians to lead, not to pander to all my wishes. By voting for him, I'm giving him that responsibility.

[Thunderball]

Octothorp is right... they're almost all C... vote with party or watch political future die.

Ideally, you want a bit of all of the above (as much of a cop out as it sounds)... one that votes with the party that they run under the flag of, except in occasions when the constituency's needs come first. What defines whether party or constituency come first is their moral compass.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Edit: octothorp beat me to it. Given the original two choices however, I'd prefer an elected official who votes according to constituents' wishes.

We would not need representatives in a direct democracy?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by troutman

We would not need representatives in a direct democracy?

Ya, I was born about 2500 years and half a globe out of time and place. Still, I think elected officials should have a good sense for what their constituents want and use that to direct their voting on issues as much as is possible with party politics.

[BlackEleven]

The later.

How is the former going to know the wishes of his consituency? He'll likely only hear the opinion of a smal very vocal minorty, which is likely the people with the strongest feelings about the subject at hand. And I don't want him voting based on the wishes of a few extreme opinions.

If there were a way for him to hear the opinions of all his constituents, then his position as an elected representative would be moot, since every issue could be put to a vote.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

The former

The reason why is that at the MLA level candidates tend to be of lower quality. In most ridings in Alberta I'd venture a guess that over 50% of the voters in the riding are at least as well educated and/or more accomplished in life than pretty much anyone willing to throw their name in the ring to run for MLA. Therefore the last thing I'd want to see is some Joe Everyman trying to use his brain cells and going against his own constituents wishes.

It used to be politics was a realm where our elites ran to gave back to the community out of a sense of duty after they retired from a prominent position in business or in the community. Now it seems people make it out to be a career to further their ambitions. Running for Alderman/MLA is like an entry-level position. Count how many people running that don't have a grey hair on their head. How much experience do these candidates have in life to be able to make cognitive decisions about legislation governing your life?

[jamesteterenko]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

The later.

How is the former going to know the wishes of his consituency? He'll likely only hear the opinion of a smal very vocal minorty, which is likely the people with the strongest feelings about the subject at hand. And I don't want him voting based on the wishes of a few extreme opinions.

I agree. I was basically going to say the same thing.

That's my thought on the matter.

[photon]

To make good decisions many things are needed; the public rarely has any of the things needed, and sometimes has a small number of the things needed. So why should the public get to decide what the best course of action is?

For something large scale things I think that it is important the public's wishes are taken into account, issues of morality sometimes, should a war be fought, stuff along those lines.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I want someone who tells me what they are going to do, and then does it. I ellect politicians to lead, not to pander to all my wishes. By voting for him, I'm giving him that responsibility.

The option was not pandering to "your" wishes.

It was pandering to the "wishes" of the constituents. Those are two different matters.

[peter12]

It depends. Obviously, representatives are most capable of dealing with intense and complicated issues, like foreign policy or economics. However, there is definitely a huge need for constituents to have a say in moral matters, in my opinion.

[photon]

I am paid to lead, not to read.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Where I'm from most people run off the handle with the dumbest ideas that will never fly and demand it.

OPEN THE COAL MINES!!!!!

REOPEN THE STEEL PLANT!!!!!

Seriously, not the smartest things to do. Don't even get me started on the toxic waste just sitting downtown with nothing being done people the constituents can't agree on what to do (here's an idea, do what EVERY OTHER CITY ON EARTH DOES!!!)

We need leaders that will do what they think is best, while listening to the concerns of the people and trying to make the two match as best as they can.

When push comes to shove, look out for our better welfare when we don't know better.