If an elected rep changes his votes to coincide with the

[DebJ]

changing will of the people, doesn't that make him an ideal representative, as opposed to one who votes against the will of the people?

[Vickers]

1. Barkeep, my friend DebJ needs a refill on her Kool Aid!

:P

Of course it is, but "nuances" like representing the people are just a teensy weensy too complicated for the neocon mindset.

[RevCheesehead]

2. I tend to agree with your statement. However, ...

We have Russ Feingold here in Wisconsin. Russ has a wonderful reputation of voting what he truly believes is right (i.e., "The Patriot Act" - he voted NO).

I guess what I would prefer is a candidate who makes a well-informed, educated vote. I think Kerry passes that test, too.

[TwilightZone]

3. Yes.

Elected officials are just that - elected. Theoretically, they should represent the views of their constituents and not vote based on their personal feelings or ideals.

This, of course, isn't common practice in the real world. Politicians usually vote based on their personal beliefs, particularly on many important issues, such as abortion.

Though, consider a politician like Tom Daschle. Because he represents a much more conservative state than most Democrats, his voting patterns could very well be more moderate or conservative than his personal beliefs.

A follow-up question could be: if politicians vote against their personal beliefs to satisfy their constituents, are they pandering? :)

[MasonJar]

4. Speaking of voting what you believe, I surely hope that that crazy

doctor does not win in Oklahoma. He sounds like a freak of the Asscrass ilk.