Vote your conscience and lose, or compromise and survive?

Situation: You are a congressperson. A bill is in congress and it is time to vote on it. Twentyfour years ago you first won election to congress and in your first term a bill almost exaclty like this one, on the same issue, came up for a vote. Your constitiuents strongly supported it, but your conscience was totally against it. You stood you ground and voted you conscience, and you lost the next election. Now, twentyfour years later, you have again won election, and fate has dumped this situation in your lap.

Your consititiuents are almost 100% in favor of the bill, and heatedly so. Your consciense still says, "No."

What do you do?

1. I am the representative of my district. I am here to speak for them, so I must speak as they want. That's what they elected me to do.

2. I am here to vote as I see best. My people elected me for my character to look at the issues and speak my own mind. They trust me.

I would need to know exactly what is in the bill.

i.e. is another bill anywhere else on the table etc.

the moral value of an act without considering the likely consequences of the act. Basically, the author is not asking us to judge an act; We're being asked to judge the morality of putting principles over practicality, as if either one could exist without the other.

thus voting your conscience and your intellect is the best, i'd imagine, plus you get peace of mind and moral leverage.

Do it once and it gets easier each time after. I site Paul Wellstone as an example. He compromised perhaps once in his career. He would've been re-elected had they allowed him to live. Uh, guess there is another potential outcome - Compromise, live politically. Conscience - live, but die politically. Conscience -live politically, get "Welstoned".

Of course, today the NTSB received the report on Wellstone's death and the finding is, shockingly enough, Pilot Error.

Your constituents are nearly 100% for it...but your conscience says "no".

How could you - in good conscience - go against the overwhelming opinions of your constituents?

If the opinions were split, then that's a different scenario. Conscience all the way.

Jeanette Rankin. She was the first woman elected to congress, voted against entrance into WWI, was punished at the polls, was elected again in 1940, and was the only member of congress to vote against the WWII. The vote was political suicide for her.

Something to think about in this current debate on the effect of gay marriage on Democrats.

It is political suicide to vote environmentally in certain states, pro-choice in some states, heck it's becoming political suicide to support a WALL between church and state.....so which class of citizens do you suggest we SCAPEGOAT or marginalize for the sake of what would then be a questionable win?

stimulate debate and Rankin was a great example. One can praise her for standing her ground, or condemn her as foolishly sacrificing her position. I leave it for DUers to debate that, and to apply it to now.

Rankin being the only person to vote no for entering WWII.

if it's overwhelming, then you have to honor the wishes of your constituents.

Otherwise, what good would writing your congressperson do?

Courageous politicians that stood their ground and fought for what was right rather than caving in.

Is that why JFK "caved" in to J Edgar Hoover and his worries about King's "commie" friends?

... someone comes along and offers you their canteen of water. Do you refuse it because it's not imported French mineral water?

"Voting your own conscience" is what you can do on your free time. While your salary is being paid by your district, you're supposed to represent them.

I immediately recognized what it was, although I never remember Rankin's name, only that she was on the wrong side of the vote both times.

I don't think you can really answer that question in abstraction, but only in the specific. Since I was born after the end of WWII, I really don't know how I might have felt at the outbreak of each of those wars. I'm a product of my environment, not another one.

I know I'm completely and totally opposed to our war in Iraq, and I have nothing but contempt for the Representatives and Senators who voted in favor of it. At the moment I feel as if I oppose all war everywhere, but another time, another set of circumstances and I might feel differently.

We compromised on NAFTA, GATT, welfare reform, telecommunications, etc...So it is understandable that many folks are just about "compromised" out...