My questions for debate are pretty simple, and most are in the header. However, for completeness, I will repeat them here, with some contextual preamble.

In representative democracies or whatever system, we vote for the people we think will best represent our views.

This can happen is several ways.

• The representative can vote the way he or she thinks we would want them to
• They can vote the way their conscience dictates, and if we know how they have voted, we can choose a representative based on how close their conscience is to ours
• They can vote according to party policy, either through choice or through a "whip" system. We can choose who to vote for based on which party fits our views most closely

My first question would be, which of these options do you prefer, and why?

I think in practice elected politicians tend to vote based on a mix of all three. My preference is for the middle way - I'm uncomfortable with the whip system as it can allow partisan policies through without being properly examined, and because career progression for politicians depends too much on towing the party line and not enough on being a "good" representative (especially in Westminster-style parliamentary systems)

My second question is related, and is how should individual representatives treat party policy? As gospel, as a guideline, or should they ignore it and vote with their conscience?

I prefer the second option. To quote Edmund Burke "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." It's an even greater betrayal to sacrifice his judgement for party opinion. But is it even possible to eliminate the "whip" in an open ballot system?

How should individual representatives treat party policy? As gospel, as a guideline, or should they ignore it and vote with their conscience?
Maybe I'm contradicting myself a bit, but I believe that representatives should treat party policy as a guideline. We have political parties for that reason, and a representative is disloyal his constituency if he doesn't consider their opinion AT ALL.

I prefer option number one. I would want a representative that was responsive to constituent input separated from cash contributions. I think a good representative should vote his or her conscience in cases where the will of the constituency is to difficult to tell, but should defer to constituency whenever possible.

I would love to see more published accounts by representatives on how and why they voted on issues. I'd love a weekly update of such things from my representatives.

OKay, it is now time to descend from fantasyland for me. I had a nice whimsical visit.

I'm curious - could people who vote in support of a party whip (the status quo) explain why they think whips work, and what they acheive?

Which of these options do you prefer, and why?

I chose option 3, mainly through a process of elimination.

Secret ballot, to avoid party pressure--Do we really want their votes to be secret? I don't think so....

Open ballot, to show electors their voting history, but with party pressures banned or restricted i.e. no "whip" I don't see any feasible way to eliminate party pressure--banning it would just make it go behind closed doors--I'd rather it be out in the open.

Open ballot, with party "whip", as now [ 4 ] [44.44%] Only one left.

In line with their party policy, no matter what the issue, to keep things simple for the electorate What would be the point of electing them, then? You'd know the results for any bill before any votes even took place, and the majority committees could pass any bill they wanted.

How should individual representatives treat party policy? As gospel, as a guideline, or should they ignore it and vote with their conscience? I'd have to go with guideline. I'd like to say 'vote with their conscience', but that isn't looking at the consequences of doing so (ie, exclusion from committees, inability to wield influence on subsequent votes, not receiving any quid pro quo for your district, etc.). In today's system, I think you'd be doing your constituents a disservice in sticking to your conscience, except on key issues which you feel very strongly about.

I would surmise that the reason why the open-vote/"whip" system works is due to the fact that for the most part, people align themselves with a particular party over a core of issues that they agree on. "Whips" can get a hesitant or outright opposing senate member of the party to vote the party line on an issue in order to get the given senator's priorities carried out. In other words, there is a little give and take-and I'm sure that even the most pigheaded congressman makes this kind of devil's bargain everyday.

I voted for option two, but in all honesty I think in a perfect system there should be no parties. A voting record is nice, but essentially meaningless when party concerns prevent a representative from voting his conscience most of the time- whip or no whip.

Could a possible way to create that situation(i.e.-no politicalparty influence) would be to make federal elections non-partisan? My state elects legislators on that basis, though everyone and their dog from Wyoming knows who is "the democrat" and who is "the republican" in a given race. At the same time, we don't have near the kind of circus acts that other states do.

I would be torn between the system we have now, whips and all, and a non-partisan system.

I believe that if we are to have political parties, with all their strengths and weaknesses, we should have a system whereby we may have a good idea of a representative's views and political leanings through the party with which they align themselves. Parties should only have loose control, but there is no sense in having a party at all if there isn't some general party idealogy that most representatives follow.

Having said that, I believe that having such a system should allow for more than just two parties. Maybe a multi-party system is hard to swallow for some people when we talk about the winner-take-all Executive Branch of government. But in Congress, with many representatives holding many different views which reflect many different constituencies, I believe that we need more than just two parties advancing our different and nuanced opinions. Let more parties into Congress, or do away with parties altogether, and the spectrum of debate becomes much wider, and more in line with our nation's many points of view.

I am also interested in the following, from nebraska29:



I would love to know the specifics of this system, since I've never lived in a state that had strictly 'non-partisan' legislative elections. Please elaborate, nebraska29.

Jefferson Smith

P.S.: I should also mention that John F. Kennedy writes quite eloquently in the Introduction to his book Profiles in Courage, about the torn loyalties of an elected official when voting on controversial legislation. He weighs party pressures, voter expectations and the representative's conscience, and explains the need to balance idealism and pragmatism in voting. I can't quote anything from it, since I don't own a copy of the book, but it makes for very compelling reading on this subject.

Glad that you asked! Nebraska' legislature was molded by former senator George Norris who was a progressive republican who voted against entry into WWI and supported most of Roosevelt's new deal programs(hence the honor of having a dam named after him in Tennessee) First, we have a unicameral legislature that was created during the depression-in order to relieve the taxpayers of the undue burden of supporting too many legislators. second, our elections are non-partisan. Party affiliation is not listed anywhere, and candidates don't dare to do so. Party websites do say who they support for office in a given district, but it's for the most part, rather lowkey. It's also not too uncommon to see a staunch liberal and republican cooperate on key bills. In a bicameral, partisan legislature, I truly doubt you would see that since there would be "whips" and party pressure to vote the party line. Here is a hyperlink to a more thorough outline of the history of the Nebraska legislature. Most recently, former governor Ventura of Minnesota sent some people to check ti out, not sure how they are coming with proposals up there, but it works very well in my opinion.

I voted for things the way they are.

Representatives should actually "represent" their constituencies in the way they vote, extreme circumstances notwithstanding. Certainly the public should know which way they are voting.

I cannot see the political parties eliminating the Whip position. After all, these politicians are elected more because of their party affiliation than due to being rugged individualists. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was a fine peace of what-if fiction, but as long as it takes money and influence to get into Congress, this type of politician will be reined in from making too many waves. This is reality.

Independents are a breath of fresh air, and a rare breed of politician.

Secret ballots would as much encourage the "smoke-filled rooms" and sweetheart deals which are already a problem in Congress, as they would negate them. What is done in secrecy needn't be explained.

Paladin is dead right on this one. Secret ballots might be good for hte legislator since no one would know how he/she voted, but it violates the principle of open-government and accountability. No elected person should cast a vote and feel ashamedthat they voted the way that they did.

Who do you mean by "elected representatives"?

The House members? The state pols? The Federal Senators?

The reason I ask is because they "represent" different constituencies.

How about all of them - especially if you think they should vote in different ways if their constituencies and their levels differ?

Sorry, Julian. That wasn't an answer.

The original system was that the members of the House (Federal) represented the people of the state because they were elected directly by the eligible voters. *The Senators represented their state Legislators, therefore the State’s interests, back home because the states appointed the senators. The president represented the executive branch of government and, ostensibly, all the people and states combined. Now, the state representatives are charged with representing only their own state constituents.

So, you see, each office has a different constituency. So you really must answer the question to get a meaningful answer. This is the problem with too many people, I think. They don’t understand the differences in government offices.



*The 17th Amendment ruined this set up by having the people vote for senators to go to Washington, by the way. Now we are stuck with a Senate that represents the interests of the national Parties instead of the people OR the state’s interests!

This is the reason I want to repeal the 17th amendment. -> Seventeenth Amendment, Should we scrap it?

I always want to know how my representative votes, but I do not want him to be influenced by his colleges.

No, it wasn't supposed to be an answer. That's why there was a question mark in it.

And no, I don't understand the differences in government offices in the USA, and it is not a problem for me, because I am British.

I know that in the British Parliament I want open ballots as now but with the removal of the party whip, i.e. every vote becomes a free vote. This is because the main problem, as I see it, with British Parliamentary politics is that the worst-drafted and most damaging (or, at best, least effective) legislation tends to be the party-political stuff steam-rollered through by large government majorities, regardless of which party is in power at the time.

Removal of the whip would make the legislature less party-political, in effect. Of course it would create internal party problems for identifying and promoting talent, but only if the current parameters (party loyalty at the expense of constituency representation or common sense). And besides, I could care less if the party bigwigs have a harder time bringing on the next bath of yes-men and yes-women.

In the US system, as you say, there are different governmental tiers and different structures for them. I don't fully understand how any of them work, so I have no opinions on how my debate question applies. That's why I answered you with a question - how do YOU think it should work? If someone else on the board agrees or diagrees, they can dive in as they see fit, but you won't get any argument from me unless your suggestions are clearly inconsistent with logic.

Julian. Ooops. I didn't realize you were not an American( On America's debate, yet). Sorry for the confusion. It is pointless to go on further with you on this subject, then.
Thanks

Which of these options do you prefer, and why?



I personally prefer a mix of all three. I would want a representative who votes most strongly with the will of the people who elected him/her in mind. Also, the representative should keep his/her conscience in mind (although this shouldn't be that much of a problem considering people generally vote for representatives who most closely match their conscience). If the representative must make a quick decision on an issue, he/she should defer the decision to his/her best impression of how the electors would want him/her to vote. Party loyalty should play a minimal role in this decision, for people just as often vote for a party over a person. The representative must keep all of these things in mind in order to accurately represent the will and interest of the electors in their legislative body.

How should individual representatives treat party policy? As gospel, as a guideline, or should they ignore it and vote with their conscience?

I think they should view party policy as a set of guidelines. They select the party whose platform most closely reflects their own personal beliefs and convictions, this is why people align themselves with parties: it gives them a good general indicator of a candidate's views. Since they have aligned themselves to a party, I feel that they owe it to their constituents to represent that party, if only minimally. Should party doctrine guide their every vote? Of course not, for that would sometimes override their own personal beliefs and, most importantly, the beliefs of their electors.

I'm curious - could people who vote in support of a party whip (the status quo) explain why they think whips work, and what they achieve?

I think that whips serve to achieve unity within the parties. I don't think that we would have parties as strong as we do today without them; I don't necessarily feel that that is a good thing, but it's the way it's been done and it's held the parties together. A strong whip can unify the party to pass or defeat a measure. As I mentioned, party policy needs to play some role in the decisions of our representatives, and I think that whips help to remind representatives of their commitments to their parties and to their constituents.

which of these options do you prefer, and why?

I voted for the second option. I want to know how my reps are voting but I don't like them being harassed for voting their conscience. Election time will tell if their conscience was what the people who represented them wanted.

My second question is related, and is how should individual representatives treat party policy? As gospel, as a guideline, or should they ignore it and vote with their conscience?
I think a loose guideline but more important is what they said they wanted to do when they were running for office. If they are voting on issues consistently opposite of their party then I would wonder why they are in that party. As times change, though, some stated policies may not be appropriate for the specific legislation. I would rather my rep act appropriately for each piece of legislation rather then towing the party line.

I think all representatives should vote according to party platform. If the platform has no definite position on an issue, then the representatives should vote according to his/her own consciences. They vote openly so constituents can check their votes.