Representing a State vs. Representing an Entire Nation

[MineralMan]

Member of the House and Senate have two roles to play. Since their job is federal legislation, I've always felt that their priorities should be related to national issues. However, they must get elected to office, and people in their state expect them to represent their interests while serving in Congress.

That sometimes creates conflicts for office-holders, and all eventually compromise and shift their votes from time to time when an issue that affects their state is up for a vote. Everyone does it.

Often, it has to do with business interests in a state, job creation, and other economic factors. Sometimes, such concerns override a congress member's own beliefs or tendencies. After all, there's another election coming up, and holding onto a seat in Congress is a tough thing to do for long.

So, when I see a vote from a Representative or Senator that seems to go against positions they generally state, I look to see if there's a state issue that influenced the vote. Generally, that's the case, I've found.

In terms of the Democratic Primary, both leading candidates have voted at times in ways that might seem puzzling. A closer look, however, often reveals an economic issue or employment issue in that candidate's home state. Exigencies of the job, and all that, often come into play.

I generally ignore such decisions, unless they seriously affect a national problem. Each case is unique. Rarely do such issues become real issues in a Presidential election. Usually, the effect on national concerns is very minor, and it's easy to understand why people sometimes appear to vote in a way that is generally opposite from their stated positions. Such is reality.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. if the decision was not in the interests of the nation, that decision must count.

Present of the US must put the nation first.

[MineralMan]

2. I think you'll find that candidates who served in

Congress all have conflicts like that. It's up to each voter to decide whether those conflicts are significant.

Personally, I tend to ignore them. As you say, Presidents must think of national issues first. That's their job. However people sitting in the House or Senate must also be concerned about national interests as a top priority. Different people do that in different ways.

It's easy enough to find examples, but their relevance is open to question.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. Two votes by Sanders stand out to me, and are why I switched

From a Sanders supporter to undecided.

He voted against the Brady Bill and he voted to immunize gun manufacturers from law suits.

His defense that he is from a small, rural state doesn't pass.


One other decision I know of involved taking low level radioactive wastes nd shipping the to Texas. I don't like that decision but don't hold it against him.

I have a slight preferance for O'Malley, but as a California citizen who will not vote un th IL June 13, I do not think my primary vote for a Presidential nominer will mater.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, those two have been discussed here.

They represent the kind of conflict I'm talking about. I see neither of them as important enough to influence my decisions to a large degree. If Sanders became the nominee, those votes wouldn't affect my decision to vote for him.

There are votes by Hillary Clinton, as well, that get discussed along the same lines. Again, none of the ones I have seen affect my decision to support her as a candidate.

There are no House or Senate members who haven't voted in ways of which I disapprove. None.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. I compare Sanders to other Democrats in the Primary.

If he wins the nomination, I will compare him to the Republicans.

In our field of three running for the Democratic nomination, he is number three.

For me, the General Election is about the best representative of the available candidates.

I wish we lived in a world where Republicans nominated some who would, in my opinion, competes on issues I consider important.

That will not happen.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Um... what?

[MineralMan]

4. Umm...read it again.

It's all part of the equation when considering candidates. At various times, people will bring up some such conflict as a point of opposition to a candidate. When that happens, the considerations I mention in this post come into play.

Any candidate who has served in the House or Senate has some such conflicts between their stated positions and votes they made while serving. We've seen a few of them brought up already. We'll see more of them, too.

My point is that such conflicts always arise. Are they relevant? That's the question. Most often, they aren't, really.

There's one such issue that's being discussed currently today on DU, with regard to the Sanders campaign. I find it insignificant and not worthy of much attention. Such things come up with regard to all campaigns when the candidate has been in the House or Senate.

[whatchamacallit]

5. Is there a post that serves as context for this

or is it another Jack Handey impersonation?

[MineralMan]

7. There are multiple posts currently under discussion that

have to do with my point, which is a general one, not specifically about any particular candidate. You could start by looking at the Nuclear waste discussions in GD . There are others about things candidates did while serving in Congress. As you look at those threads, and others that arise in the future, what I wrote is pertinent.

I'm not always discussing particular threads. Sometimes I post about general issues. This is one of those times.

I don't do impersonations. What I write is my opinion only.