Maybe. But the people of San Diego and the people of San Francisco are not the same community. Likewise, the people of New York and Idaho.
“The community” or “the people”, in this view, are the community/people served by the state. So San Diegans and San Franciscans are both part of the people of California, and the duty of all the officials of the State of California is to serve the interests of that people/community.
At the federal level, you could make an argument that the duty of all federal officials is to the people of the United States. But you could argue that, since this is a federal republic, this constitutes an exception to the general rule, and the duty of the federal Senators and Representatives sent by California is to the community/people of California. That would still leave CA representatives having a duty to serve the entire Californian people, and not just the people of the particular congressional district that elected them.
This is GQ. Your post is an opinion, not a factual answer.
Maybe this thread should be moved to GD/Politics?
This seems like this gets at the key issue in the OP’s question (which doesn’t have a GQ answer, except that it’s not a very good multiple choice question).
The number of congressional seats is roughly determined by the number of residents and, in the original scheme, enslaved “residents” were counted in a different manner than free residents. States then divide the states into districts, designed along similar methods.
Representatives are then chosen by subset of the residents in that district (all of whom are citizens, but not all citizens are “electors” a/k/a eligible voters).
It seems to me that the “all people” answer necessary assumes that the people who are included in the counting methodology (i.e., basically all residents) are being represented. But that hasn’t really historically been true, and I’m not sure anyone would have suggested otherwise. I don’t know why it would be true now (that there are no longer enslaved persons being counted) if it wasn’t historically.
I don’t have an alternative suggestion – perhaps all eligible voters in the district? I think both b and c are wrong in that sense.
I think the argument here would be that what’s good for the state/nation/planet is also good for the district. The argument would be “Yes, I voted to shut down that military base in our district and that’s going to hurt the local economy in the short run. But the bigger picture is that this is part of a general closing of unneeded military bases and reduction in the federal budget which will improve the economy and help everyone in the long run, including those of us living in our district.”
Apropos example.
The BRAC mechanism was intended to have the DoD present a slate of units and facilities for closure which Congress could approve or disapprove as a group, but could not cherry-pick.
The idea was precisely to give Congresscritters the political cover to vote for the national good at the expense of the local good and survive the backlash against their vote.
Hint: It worked sorta awhile ago and has since been stuck in the mud despite the fact we now pay vast taxes for a ridiculous array of utterly unneeded facilities that sap the other spending that would deliver actual military value.
Fair point. But I think the question posed in the citizenship test is only capable of being answered as a matter of opinion. I’m pretty sure there is no US law - legislation or judicial ruling - which states to whom a representative owes his representational duties. This is essentially a political and ethical question, and it can only be answered in those terms.
The question is neatly sidestepped in the oath of office taken by representatives, who swear to support and defend the US Constitution, bear true faith and allegiance to the US, and “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter”. No attempt is made to specify what those duties are or to whom they are owed. The most we can say is that neither a representative’s district nor their state get any mention at all in the oath, and we might argue that the references to the US constitution and bearing true faith and allegiance to the US suggest that the duties of the office are also owed to the US. Thus he may be the representative from or selected by the 7th District of Alabama, but he is a representative of the entire people of the United States. But I freely admit that’s reading an awful lot into the oath.
A related question, and one equally open only to a political/ethica answer, is what does it even mean to “represent”? Let’s assume that a representative’s duty is to represent X group of people, whether that be the voters in his district or the people of the US at large. Does he represent them by attending, voting and otherwise exercising the powers and functions of a member of the House of Representatives? Or does he only represent them if he exercises those functions as they (or a majority of them) wish, or would wish? Or only if exercises functions in their best interests, or in what he honestly and carefully judges to be their best interests? Again, I think competing political theories would suggest different answers, and the law is silent on the point.
Given that the answers to the test in the OP represent political opinions, let’s move this to Politics and Elections.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
This is one of the answers I got wrong when I took that NY Times sample test. I don’t see how it’s anything but B. Even if the Trump administration is successful in not including undocumented immigrants in its census count, legal immigrants will still count towards apportionment. So, those are non-citizens who went towards the creation or continuation of each representative’s seat – it seems silly to say that the representative doesn’t represent at least legal immigrants as well.
If (hopefully, when) the Trump administration fails in their effort to call undocumented immigrants non-persons, then it’s even clearer that a representative represents all the people.
I’d like to think that it is (b), but @Falchion make’s some compelling points that at least historically that has clearly been untrue (slave being counted for apportionment but clearly not being represented).
It’s certainly not © based on @RitterSport 's point that non-citizens legal residents would typically be considered as “represented” by the current understanding of the word (and even non-legal residents in many cases like immigration reform or DACA legislation, or the more basic common defense).
I think ultimately the answer is one not given: whomever the hell they want as long as they can get re-elected. I’m not aware of any legal requirements that would compel a representative to behave in a certain way with respect to their representation. They could, as far as I can tell, work exclusively for the benefit of undocumented people in their district as long as their constituents continued to vote for them (and they didn’t break any laws or rules of the House, of course). We all know they can work exclusively for the interests of trans-national corporations.
In this way I think (a) may be closest, or even the broader “people living in the United States of American”.
I would think that the amendments that abolished slavery and required equal protection would override that history. So, up until the Civil War, maybe A, but after that, B seems to be the best answer.
Ask not for whom the Representative votes, they vote for thee.
My point was a little broader than just slavery. The persons included in apportionment has always been a bigger pool than the persons doing the voting for the representatives. Slaves are a clear example, but historically that also included (variations on) females, non-whites, children, adults under 21, non-landowners, non-citizens, etc.
If abolishing slavery and extending the franchise to black citizens makes them “represented,” then it’s still the case that there is a pool of people who are counted for apportionment purposes, but not eligible to vote – children under 18, disenfranchised felons, aliens (lawfully or unlawfully present), people who recently moved, etc.
If it’s obvious that the former category of persons ineligible to vote aren’t represented, why not the same for the current categories?
Well, then, the answer is still wrong, since children and some felons are citizens but can’t vote.
“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… Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but… a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament.”
Edmund Burke, MP (Speech to the Electors of Bristol, Nov. 3, 1774)
I think the principle is that a representative represents everyone living in their district; citizens and non-citizens, illegal residents, homeless people, semi-transients, non-voters, children, people who voted for the other guy. And even, arguably, people that will live in the district in the future.
Elections are supposed to determine the best person for the job. But once elected, the representative is supposed to put the election behind them and work for everyone. Not just the people who voted for them.
Look at it this way: this is a multiple choice question - not a graduate paper on political theory.
B was the correct answer. It is the answer that was taught in civics classes. It is the answer that was taught in test prep classes. The only reason that anyone is paying attention to the change is because the new answer is outrageously ideological, part of the anti-immigrant ideology of the current administration. C is a lie, a deliberate lie, a piece of propaganda and a political tool to cut down on people the administration considers to be not even second-class citizens but trash.
The entire revised test was a surprise dumped on people. It contains questions that the prep didn’t cover. It raises the vocabulary level. It was promulgated with the lie that the test needs to be changed every ten years.
It does not deserve honest debate. It is unconscionable. That this particular change is insidious propaganda is just a microcosm of the whole.
The Trump administration just trolled millions of would-be American citizens. Why is anyone acting as if this can be legitimized?
I would be tempted to write in
e) Corporations and wealthy donors
Ah, but since Citizens United, they’re considered Citizens, and therefore fall into answer C.
I wonder if that is the logic behind C being correct…
I continue to argue for a. Congressmen represent their states. Districts came later and they needn’t reside within their districts. But they must reside within their states.