A True Question Of Politics

[EagleD]

Which system do you prefer?

A politician runs for office with a platform he/she wants their constituents to follow.

vs.

A politician runs for office to represent the will of those constituents.

I had this conversation in MANY Poli/Sci classes at NT. To be honest I'm not sure. I want a representative with the courage of his convictions, but I also want a rep who will do as his district wants.

I thought about this a lot during Spector's decision.

[Shuke-D]

Which system do you prefer?

A politician runs for office with a platform he/she wants their constituents to follow.

vs.

A politician runs for office to represent the will of those constituents.

I had this conversation in MANY Poli/Sci classes at NT. To be honest I'm not sure. I want a representative with the courage of his convictions, but I also want a rep who will do as his district wants.

I thought about this a lot during Spector's decision.

EagleD.

I like how any asinine provocation generates spools of vitriolic threads from purportedly serious-minded folk, but a question setting up a dialectical proposition (the sort of stuff we were taught at good old UNT) to invite participation is ignored.

I’ll take a stab at it as it is one the first genuine attempts to explore ideas seen in these here parts in a while.

I would re-evaluate the locus of your proposition just a bit though. You ask whether a candidate should run on one of two methods of representation. And that’s fair enough. But I would actually be curious to hear how each of us as voters determines what type of candidate should represent us.

I remember from Dr. Cox’s poly sci class that there were three traditional methods:

1. Rational Actor model: choosing the candidate who would seem to possess the strongest abilities to understand information/process differences/arrive at decisions regardless of their belief system. Basically, this model emphasizes that there are too many factors on a national/global scale for the average person to fully comprehend, and that only an elected leader who gets to spend 100% of their time devoted to these matters can truly handle them; hence, you vote for the most rational actor in the bunch, regardless of what beliefs/values they have.

2. Trustee model: Based on the sense of trust that the person you are voting for will act in the best interests of your beliefs/values when making decisions. This is the middle ground between models. Values matter, but knowing that it is a difficult job that must find a balance among hundreds, if not thousands, of competing viewpoints, this model trusts that the candidate will advance your value system as much as is realistically possible in a world of multiplicity. Your beliefs might not win all the battles all the time, but you believe the candidate will do his/her best under the circumstances.

3. Delegate model: The candidate has openly expressed values that you agree with, and you are delegating them to represent those values with strength, passion, and power. They answer to you and will faithfully represent what you believe in.

Now, obviously, there’s room for slippage in between the three categories, but they do help sort out how we go about choosing candidates. Me, I like the Rational Actor model (guess that’s why I’ve split my votes over the years between Republicans and Democrats), and am willing to go with a candidate that doesn’t believe exactly what I believe, so long as they seem thoughtful, prudent, and respectful of civilized dissent. Of course, how long has it been since either of the two parties put out a particularly good candidate according to that definition?

[sorry if this ended up being a hijack EagleD. I do like the question and hope I didn’t derail too much from what you were trying to achieve]

[eulessismore]

Which system do you prefer?

A politician runs for office with a platform he/she wants their constituents to follow.

vs.

A politician runs for office to represent the will of those constituents.

I had this conversation in MANY Poli/Sci classes at NT. To be honest I'm not sure. I want a representative with the courage of his convictions, but I also want a rep who will do as his district wants.

I thought about this a lot during Spector's decision.

I expect a politician, and anyone else, to be reasonable and see things my way.

[EagleD]

EagleD.

I like how any asinine provocation generates spools of vitriolic threads from purportedly serious-minded folk, but a question setting up a dialectical proposition (the sort of stuff we were taught at good old UNT) to invite participation is ignored.

I’ll take a stab at it as it is one the first genuine attempts to explore ideas seen in these here parts in a while.

I would re-evaluate the locus of your proposition just a bit though. You ask whether a candidate should run on one of two methods of representation. And that’s fair enough. But I would actually be curious to hear how each of us as voters determines what type of candidate should represent us.

I remember from Dr. Cox’s poly sci class that there were three traditional methods:

1. Rational Actor model: choosing the candidate who would seem to possess the strongest abilities to understand information/process differences/arrive at decisions regardless of their belief system. Basically, this model emphasizes that there are too many factors on a national/global scale for the average person to fully comprehend, and that only an elected leader who gets to spend 100% of their time devoted to these matters can truly handle them; hence, you vote for the most rational actor in the bunch, regardless of what beliefs/values they have.

2. Trustee model: Based on the sense of trust that the person you are voting for will act in the best interests of your beliefs/values when making decisions. This is the middle ground between models. Values matter, but knowing that it is a difficult job that must find a balance among hundreds, if not thousands, of competing viewpoints, this model trusts that the candidate will advance your value system as much as is realistically possible in a world of multiplicity. Your beliefs might not win all the battles all the time, but you believe the candidate will do his/her best under the circumstances.

3. Delegate model: The candidate has openly expressed values that you agree with, and you are delegating them to represent those values with strength, passion, and power. They answer to you and will faithfully represent what you believe in.

Now, obviously, there’s room for slippage in between the three categories, but they do help sort out how we go about choosing candidates. Me, I like the Rational Actor model (guess that’s why I’ve split my votes over the years between Republicans and Democrats), and am willing to go with a candidate that doesn’t believe exactly what I believe, so long as they seem thoughtful, prudent, and respectful of civilized dissent. Of course, how long has it been since either of the two parties put out a particularly good candidate according to that definition?

[sorry if this ended up being a hijack EagleD. I do like the question and hope I didn’t derail too much from what you were trying to achieve]

Not a derail at all. You've rephrased the question in a way I never could have.

As a young voter I followed the Rational Actor model. The older I get, the more I follow the Delegate model. I guess that's why I'm more likely to look at third parties now.

Edited May 9, 2009 by EagleD

[FirefightnRick]

Delegate model for me. But that's more easier to define in local elections than national I suppose?

Rick

[Guest JohnDenver]

I remember from Dr. Cox’s poly sci class that there were three traditional methods:

Dr. Gloria Cox is one of my favorite people ... Every year I can't wait to see her at the first home game.

[oldguystudent]

That's tough. I would lean initially towards the delegate model, but it's a pretty rare thing for one person or a group of constituents in a given geographic are to have the goals and values that are good for a nation as a whole. On a simplistic level, is there any one system that would mutually and equally benefit Texas, California and Iowa? Rick's got it right on the local level, although I've seen such derisiveness on local matters here in Frisco, I can't think of any model that really serves everybody. Unfortunately, I think most people, myself included, vote for their own personal interests, and that just isn't usually a very good plan.

[stebo]

I will throw in a third scenario if you don't mind - the Clinton model... Someone that is willing to change on policy issues with public opinion during their term(s).

Clinton is a great example of someone that evolved with public opinion. Some people call that a flip flopper, others would call it someone with an open mind prepared to listen to others opinions at all times. Clinton was only elected with 43% of the vote his first term due to Perot and overwhelming won re-election despite a plethora of scandals. I voted against him for term 1 and for him for term 2.

I would even put McCain into this category, he has sound fundamental politics but is very central otherwise and would flip flop a lot both before and after he ran for President. Then there is someone like W that knows what he believes in and trusts that God (literally) will guide him to carry it out. He guided us through a terrible attack on the country and had the highest approval rating of any President for about a month, despite losing the popular vote just 10 months before. W Bush could care less about polls or public opinion - he had his party's ideals and wasn't going to budge. He also believed strongly in fighting religious fanatics (kinda ironic because his base was filled with religious fanatics - again, I voted for him despite this).

I would go with Rick for local issues - you vote for someone to represent what they promised you. If they keep those promises, they get re-elected.

On National issues - you have to look at what the person stands for. You pick someone that will represent your ideals because politics is a game/dance about compromise. And you pick someone that is powerful enough in both speech and character to accomplish his goal or else we just have another warm body in Washington taking up space. Carter is a good example of a man with great ideas but TERRIBLE execution. By the time that Carter was in his 2nd year, he couldn't talk Congress into saying the Pledge of Allegiance (I read that in a textbook once). The guy could not get ANY of his ideas implemented. Carter wanted fuel efficient cars and energy independence. A man before his time when it came to SOME ideas, just terrible at execution.

Can we please not hijack this by arguing about the current president? I have always said that Bushy will be judged fairly well in the history books for keeping us safe after 9/11 and I maintain that to this day, despite the other things that he did that I might disagree with (for the record - I voted for W both times). I feel that I am a true Independent because I choose the person, not the party.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

A politician should do or vote for what is best for his district or state (the people he represents) ....not just what is best for their political party or themselves.. Unfortunately a lot of them don't.

Edited May 8, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66