Political Science 1
1 December, 2012
Direct Interests Of The People
An elected representative in a democratic society should directly represent the views of the people who he was elected by. The best statement that describes this role would be “...as your duly elected representative, it is my responsibility to vote your wishes and not my opinion.” as opposed to a statement such as: “I will be voting my true convictions.” An elected representative should purely represent his constituents' wishes because the people have a real say in the matter of how their country is run and thus how their lives are run. Without this type of representation, the phrase “by the people for the people” - referring to the government – is less meaningful because the people may not be necessarily running their own country. A statement like “I will be voting my true convictions” sort of implies a country that is governed by a certain elite group of individuals rather than the actual people in that country. Of course, the representative may still adequately represent the views of the people who voted him/her in, but there is definitely room for the peoples' views being ignored on behalf of political ties or agendas. That is why voting the wishes of the people would be the best way to go under a democratic society.
The very purpose of a democratic society is to have a government where everybody has an equal part and role in the organization and structure of the society. This is done in the Scott 2
Unite States of America by way of voting. The people vote on what kind of country they want ultimately and that is the country they end up with. There has to be an efficient way of getting people's desires out and implemented into the society in which they live and take shelter of. A society is really just a contract between the people and the government for basic needs such as protection or for community. A democracy is a contract where the people agree to cooperate with certain governmental aspects of rule and law, but the people also expect to have a say in this law in order to ensure that the country isn't being run by a dictatorship. If people did not have a strong say in the matter of government then that would lead to oppression and a monarchy – the very type of rule that Americans were trying to get away from in the first place. Of course, in context with today's structure of government and being realistic, it might not seem that drastic, but it really does imply the notion of a monarchy. It certainly points more in that direction, that's all.
A member of congress voting his “true convictions” might exercise that power to boost a certain political agenda of his or to boost some other actions that are not in the best interests of the people. It is really all about the interests of the people. When a member of congress votes his true convictions rather than the true convictions of his constituents, then what does that say about the true interests of the people/constituents? It doesn't say much. It would mean that the people vote a certain member of congress into office in accordance with their own interests or priorities, but then that member of congress decides to vote his own convictions or interests instead of the peoples; it could certainly shift to that scenario. And if Scott 3
that member of congress had his own political agenda that really did not have much to do with the best interests of his constituents, then that would be a form of corruption. Corruption is one of the main aspects of a member of congress voting his...