Are we their constituents ? If we didn't vote for them, then we are not. A politician is in office because the majority of the people in his district believe in his views. Therefore, he is representing his constituents when he votes. So what good does it do to complain that he's not representing those who didn't vote for him. We need to vote in the guys/gals that represent OUR views in order to have the agenda go our way.
That's how it works....
[i]Are we their constituents ? If we didn’t vote for them, then we are not. A politician is in office because the majority of the people in his district believe in his views. Therefore, he is representing his constituents when he votes. So what good does it do to complain that he’s not representing those who didn’t vote for him. We need to vote in the guys/gals that represent OUR views in order to have the agenda go our way.
That’s how it works....[/i]
I disagree. If it were that simple, we’d just have a pure democracy. Being a statesmen in a republic means recognizing a responsibility larger than catering to the whims of those who voted for you instead of the other guy. It means representing the best interest of all the people in your constituency, whether they voted for you or not. If proposed legislation adversely affects one group at the expense of another, or violates the principles enshrined in the Constitution, it does not serve the general welfare.
But I get where you’re coming from. You’re reflecting the modern sense that we elect people to office, not to do a defined job, but to do whatever we want them to do for us. This is the way it has become, but not the way it is supposed to be. The election should be about qualification and affirmation of the constitutional role of government, not what the candidate can do for you or your special interest group.