JewelSong wrote:If a candidate does that, he/she is failing to follow the basic tenets of democracy, at least in the USA. A candidate is bound to follow the will of his/her constituency, not his/her own whim/desires. That is what the candidate promises to do if elected. That is why people can have a say in how things turn out by lobbying their elected officials..truehobbit wrote:Maybe where we disagree is this: I would expect a candidate to decide according to what he thinks is best, not according to what his constituency wants.
Oh, no. No no no no no. As my high school civics teacher said, we live in a republic, not a democracy. The idea is to choose rulers who (in theory) will be the wisest and most dedicated and make the most prudent decisions. NOT to be our mouthpieces, nor a sort of referendum-by-proxy. Congressmen vote on far, far too huge a number and range of issues to fall within an 'electoral mandate' for all their actions.
The important feature of this or any other republic is not that the elected rulers do exactly what we want, but that, unlike a monarchy, we get to fire them if they go too far against the grain (or try to seduce pages).
Certainly the Framers intended it this way. For over a hundred years the populace didn't even vote for US Senators. And although the Electoral College never actually worked the way the Framers intended, the idea was that the people would elect an assembly of Wise Men who would soberly choose the Best Possible President (who, it was assumed, would have too much dignity to stoop to campaigning for the job).
As Churchill said: democracy is the worst form of government ever devised, except for all the others.