Friday, August 12, 2016

The concept of "percentage agreement" as a metric for political support.

I get asked that question on occasion... if you support someone politically "X" amount of the time, then you should vote for them.

To that, I say: "It depends."

I believe, for example, that there is a great deal more to it than agreeing with, say, 80% of someone's voting record.

For example: is that person truthful?

Do they respect you as a constituent?

Do they keep their promises, no matter the size?

You see, I believe a politician is an employee, someone who got the job to be the voice of the people.

I believe the will of the people, no matter how expressed, is always the top priority of an elected person.

Ascertaining that will, representing that will, defending that will and voting it.

Individual and personal agendas can never take priority over what we sent you up there to do.

Before every vote, the first question someone in government must ask themselves, is this:

"Is that what my district would want?"

Legislators are supposed to be the embodiment of the will of the electorate.

The become dangerous the moment they sublimate our will for their own.

They are particularly loathsome the moment they promise "X" but deliver "Y" instead.

They are particularly despicable the moment they lie to their employers (us) about their actions and why they took them.

I can, as a result, vote for someone I agree with 80% of the time.  But any of these things are a disqualifier if I support their voting record 100% of the time.

Taking it to an absurd level, what if I were to support someone 99% of the time but the other 1% of the time, they, for example, supported bringing back slavery?  Or taking our guns away?  Or restricting free speech?  How much leeway do they get for that?

Other criteria are equally important over a percentage metric.  Disrespect me; ignore me; lie to me?

And we're done.

These are not the only criteria, of course.  But they'll do for a start.

No comments: