For years political science professors have been explaining two theories of representation to their students. The delegate theory of representation states that the legislator should do what his or her constituents want. If the legislator personally thinks that abortion should be an issue between a woman and her doctor, but a large majority of his or her constituents think abortion is wrong, then the legislator should oppose abortion.
On the other hand, the trustee theory of representation holds that a legislator should do what he or she thinks is correct. This theory is usually credited to English parliamentarian Edmund Burke, who disagreed with his constituents and explained that they elected him because they trusted him to do the right thing, no matter if it went against their particular opinion on a specific issue.
More recently, a third theory of representation has emerged. The third type is neither delegate nor trustee, but is labeled a politico. Politicos have no fixed ideology, nor do they necessarily do what their constituents wish. They do whatever it takes to get reelected. If the NRA contributes a large amount of campaign contributions, they will oppose restrictions on weaponry, no matter what their personal beliefs or their constituents’ wishes.
The question is, why did Pat Toomey change his mind on the TPP? For years he supported that agreement. Now he sees that both Clinton and Trump oppose it. When did he really decide the TPP was a bad idea? Did he decide he better do what the voters want? Or did his desire for reelection override his beliefs,and this was the road to victory? I’m guessing politico.
No comments:
Post a Comment