If you’re a honest man you should vote your conscience. Your conscience would presumably be affectd by a variety of things - what you felt was best for the population at large, what you felt was moral and ethical, your personal interpretation of the meaning and relevance of international law, your role in your particular position, AND what the people wanted and how much weight you give that on the issue at hand.
There’s no easy answer.
What an elegant formulation. I hope you don’t mind if I borrow it occasionally.
Perhaps we are recalling the same thread. The concept of democratic leadership I put forth was that leaders should shape public opinion.
Leaders do take public opinion into account. At least, those who wish to remain in the lead do. Are you aware, for instance, that presidents generally do follow through on campaign promises? According to Thomas Patterson’s The Vanishing Voter Bill Clinton did about average for postwar presidents. In his first three years he delivered on 2/3 of his promises and seen others die in Congress. Popularity isn’t only important at election time. Our government is designed to work poorly. In order to govern a president needs to maintain the support of those interests which elected him. Popular presidents à la Reagan can set policy even when the opposition controls the Congress.
I sort of agree with Edmund Burke:
What % of the populace should support a war before the leaders engage in it? And how is this percentage to be determined?
I don’t understand enough about how the Spanish government works, but presumably their president didn’t engage in the Iraq war w/o some consent of the legislature. In other words, I think you are oversimplifying the situation.
Are you missing the point on purpose, or has this been a lifelong condition?
For the last f*ing time, I didn’t say jack shite about the President of anywhere. I specifically meant legislators when I said “leaders”
How’s this?
Yes. It is bad, “being a tool of the polls.” Presumably, the reasons to go to war involve detailed information which is not generally available nor generally understood. It is very easy for a population to be wrong about some issue or other. Ideally, of course, a leader will convince, through reasoned argument, his constiuency that his actions are correct. However, in the end, it is the responsibility of the office holder to execute his office. If that includes voting for war, then he has to vote for or against such a war to the best of his abilities.
If his only reason for voting agains a war is that it is unpopular, then he has abdicated the oath he took when he accepted his election in the first place.
Having said that, I must add, relax. Many people are not as clear on your question as you are. You seem to be infusing the issue with suppositions or claims concering the Spanish election. If you believe that a representative should vote against a war which is unpopular, then you should certainly be willing to answer John Mace’s question about how unpopular it has to be. Is a 20% disaproval rating enough? Perhaps if most people are ambivilant? How would you measure the feelings of your population? If simple polls are sufficient to answer such questions as whether or not a country should go to war, then would you support replacing elections with polls? A good argument could be made that a broad random sample would actually be more representitive of the American desires than elections.
It was a legitimate question. You shouldn’t dismiss it simply because you can’t answer it. Are we supposed to be considering only those issues which 90% of the populace are against? And I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that opinion polls are often wrong-- that people often vote differently when they’re actually pulling that lever in the voting booth.
You shouldn’t open a thread unless you’re prepared to resond civilly to people who ask you questions.
It doesn’t represent my opinion. I don’t see why I should have to answer it.
I never mentioned anything about a slavish devotion to an absolute number taken at a standardized poll. I said that when a vast majority of the people you represent believe something, should you follow it.
You shouldn’t post on a debate board unless you have some capacity to understand the words written on the page.
The US is somewhat of an oddity when answering your question. Whether by judicial fiat or the guidance of the Founders, it’s become the job of legislatures to apply the will of the people to the laws, and up to the judiciary to decide if they took it too far.
Define “vast majority”. And that, btw, is **EXACTLY ** the same issue I raised when I first aske you “what percentage…”
And you have not addressed how one goes about determining what the opinions of the populace is in the first place, other than an election in which case your point is moot.
I’ll give that statement all the consideration it is due.