I also don't think "majority of constituents want it" should be the driver of political change. As was said earlier, an elected official's responsibility is to represent their constituency, while protecting the rights of the minority. If a bill would infringe on the rights of even one person, in a district the person did not represent, then I don't care if 100% of the person's constituency favored the bill, I believe they should vote against it. If a majority of Texas constituents favored gun control, I still would not believe that should be favored politically.The Wall wrote:If you were elected because of your, principles, beliefs, morals, religion, upbringing, culture and teachings, then that's what you stand on. Personally I think that should only be a small part of what you stand on. You're in office to do what your constituents want not what you as an individual or elected official wants. Morales, and honesty would be the biggies in my opinion. I think an example of this is open carry. Obviously the majority of the constituents wanted open carry but some of the Reps. and Senators let their own feelings into the mix. Some of them forgot about morals and honesty. Whenever I hear a politician use the words, "I think we should," I say, I don't care what you think. What do your constituents think is what I want to hear. When these politicians only care about their own agendas based on their beliefs they no longer represent the people. Most compromise of their principles is political because bottom line is they want to get reelected. A reason I'm for term limits. But that's a different subject. IMHO
Nice post and thought provoking questions Mojo84.
Search found 1 match
Return to “Some questions prompted by the 84th session”
- Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:01 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: Some questions prompted by the 84th session
- Replies: 14
- Views: 8553