[Jason Vines]

Edmund Burke served in the English Parliament during the late 1700's, and today, many people consider him one of the greatest members of that body in its history. So his ideas merit careful attention.

In his "Speech to the Electors of Bristol," Burke rails against the concept of elected representatives as unthinking mirrors of their constituents' beliefs. He said:

Quote

Government and Legislation are matters of reason and judgement, and not of inclination; and, what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one sett of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

...

Parliament is not a Congress of Ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an Agent and Advocate, against other Agents and Advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative Assembly of one Nation, with one Interest, that of the whole; where, not local Purposes, not local Prejudices ought to guide, but the general Good, resulting from the general Reason of the whole. You chuse a Member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not Member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament.

(Emphasis mine.)

I agree with Burke wholeheartedly. We don't all vote on issues ourselves because 1) a deliberative body of millions would be chaos but also because 2) many of us don't have the knowledge or expertise to judge political issues. Perhaps some of us don't have the necessary education, maybe none of us have the requisite security clearances, or possibly we haven't read the appropriate news articles. Therefore, we send statesmen to Washington, D.C., to vote on laws for us.

I'm not saying politicians shouldn't consider the views of their constituents. As Burke says in his speech,

Quote

[The opinion] of Constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a Representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; Mandates issued, which the Member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgement and conscience; these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental Mistake of the whole order and tenour of our Constitution.

Our representatives in Congress should listen to what we say. Whenever possible, they should carry out our wishes. But they shouldn't be, nor should we expect them to be, our myrmidons. They should vote in accordance with their reason and their conscience. If we don't like the results, or if we feel they have deviated too far from our wants, then we can always vote them out of office.

I think the modern tendency toward representatives who form no thoughts without consulting polls has degraded the quality of our government. Our leaders don't lead, but stumble about like headless chickens depending on the latest whims of the majorities in their constituencies. This encourages gridlock and discord, as the good of the nation falls down the list of priorities. And we facilitate that by refusing to reward candidates of vision, always sending back the same tired old folks who pander to us.

What do you think? Do you think anything is wrong with "a Congress of Ambassadors"?

International users, what are your perspectives on this vis a vis your own legislative bodies?

[Demagogue]

Quote

think the modern tendency toward representatives who form no thoughts without consulting polls has degraded the quality of our government. Our leaders don't lead, but stumble about like headless chickens depending on the latest whims of the majorities in their constituencies

This forms my thoughts exactly. However, the US is more poll-oriented than Canada, but a substantial number of government representatives rely on what the polls say, namely, the Liberal party. I dont know what the polls say, but where I live, the majority of our MP's(members of parliament) are elected by what they stand for in our federal elections, and dont care about the polls.

That brings me to another point.

Quote

but Parliament is a deliberative Assembly of one Nation, with one Interest, that of the whole; where, not local Purposes, not local Prejudices ought to guide, but the general Good, resulting from the general Reason of the whole

I feel that as Canada becomes divided between two or three parties, alot of elected representatives, (MP's / Congressmen) are more concerned with just being elected period, not really interested if it is for the greater good of the country.


I agree though, members should for the majority of the time vote with the their constituents wishes, but you can't force them to vote on issues that they are morally against. ie: An anti-abortionist who represents a constituency that is pro-abortion.

-Dem