Yes, we can.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

As representatives, they shouldn't be voting party line anyways. They should be voting the way their home state feels to the best of their ability. Public opinion was vastly opposed to the bailout, so kudos to all who voted against it for representing the public.

Voting based on public opinion is no more or less valid than voting based on party lines.

They should be voting based on what they think will have the most favorable outcome for the country. The definition of "most favorable outcome" is hardly cut and dry. If they pass it and the economy still falters and the Democrats get voted out for passing a "bad" bailout (nevermind whether any further failures are the fault of the bailout or not) that they voted for but the republicans didn't, is that the "most favorable outcome?" from a Democrat's perspective? Not even in terms of the personal unfavorableness of losing one's job, but from the perspective of, "We got voted out for doing what we thought was right against public opinion, and now everything else we stand for is going to fall by the wayside because of that one issue."

That's just for starters. Such is politics. No vote is done in a vacuum. No vote is safe from being used to screw you in the future. It must really suck to deal with. Even if you're 100% sure of which vote is the "right" vote on a particular issue, you STILL have to stop and think and decide if doing the "right" thing on that single point will prevent you from being able to do the "right" thing on a larger scale down the line.

[scaeagles]

The House of Representatives was never intended to be filled with career politicians for just this reason (the Senate is different, of course). The view of what is the most favorable outcome for the nation is typically trumped by the desire to be reelected.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Even if a representative themself isn't looking at their own reelection, they still want to pave the way for someone who agrees with them to take their place. Politics will always be an inextricable part of the decision making process.

[Alex]

The problem with government spending a lot of money to successfully prevent (or reduce a problem) is that if they are successful, they're screwed because so many people will believe that the prevention was unnecessary since nothing bad happened. If they fail they are screwed since obviously it didn't prevent anything even if it was the only thing that even had a chance of doing so. If they do nothing and it happens, they are screwed since they should have done whatever was necessary to prevent it. If they do nothing and nothing happens then they got away with it.

[scaeagles]

I agree to an extent. However, their votes would then be more often be in line with what they think is best rather than what they think is politically expedient.

Agreed, Alex. And it is very easy to present any spin as a political opponent.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I agree to an extent. However, their votes would then be more often be in line with what they think is best rather than what they think is politically expedient.

Vaguely so, but I really don't think it would be enough to make a huge difference. The only thing it really cuts out is votes and deals based on long standing personal relationships between individual representatives. The larger scale deal making and politic-motivated voting between parties at odds with each other will continue no matter how often you rotate the individuals. I agree that it would be an improvement, but not enough for me to be hugely motivated to fight for term limits. And definitely not enough for me to vote term limits in for my own state while other states remain limit-free.

And yeah, you're right Alex, damned if you do, damned if you don't. They've kinda put themselves in this position, though, by going through the charade of publically reaming Paulson and company, only to turn around and say, "We've almost come to an agreement!" And then, by ditching that agreement, coming to another one, and voting THAT one down, it's painfully obvious that they've stopped making decisions based on what's best to do but they're just riding the wave of public opinion.

[Betty]

If they are truly representing "us", shouldn't they be loyal to public opinion? or is it too little too late for them to start that now since it never really mattered before?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Betty

If they are truly representing "us", shouldn't they be loyal to public opinion? or is it too little too late for them to start that now since it never really mattered before?

No, they should represent our interests, not our demands.

[Gemini Cricket]

On another note, I had a wonderful conversation with Mum about politics tonight. It didn't get heated and we both were very cordial to each other. She worries about Palin's readiness to lead and is concerned about McCain's temper. She wants to like Obama, but she thinks he's not as smart as JFK. She also thinks that Michelle Obama is going to be another Hillary Clinton and be a puppeteer.

I asked her if she believed the silly rumor about Obama being a Muslim. And she said at first she did but is questioning it because there is no proof. I told her that he says he's a Christian. She wanted to know how long he was a Christian. I said it didn't matter, born again Christians are brand new and embraced by other Christians, so even if he was a 'new Christian' it shouldn't matter... Christian is Christian...

The most important part was that she was actually listening to my take on Obama. It was refreshing.

She honestly is considering protest voting. Leaving it blank. Which was interesting to hear. She is a die hard Republican (although she voted for Carter twice and loves loves loves JFK).

Oh, and she thought it was rude that McCain didn't look at Obama during the debate. She said she kept yelling at the TV for him to do just that.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Betty

If they are truly representing "us", shouldn't they be loyal to public opinion? or is it too little too late for them to start that now since it never really mattered before?

Not necessarily, which is why we're a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. The fickleness of public opinion is one reason the Senate was specifically shielded from it with long six year terms in rotating waves.

If this "crisis" had arisen 12 months ago or six weeks from now, the behavior in the House of Representatives would be dramatically different knowing that there would be a period of time for the voters to either come to terms with it, to forget about it, or for it to work in a way that they can stand tall for having done it.

As far as blame for yesterday's embarrassment goes, I put it squarely on whoever is heading the Republican caucus (and whips) on this issue. Among the nays were both people acting simply for political reasons and people acting out of ideological principles.

But the bill should never have come to vote until both caucuses were sufficiently confident of passage. Either the Republican caucus failed to accurately count votes or they were unable to hold their internal agreements.