By Wayne William Cipriano
In a democratic republic like the United States of America, the citizens select representatives who operate within the governmental structure carrying with them the power to act by what the Declaration of Independence calls the “consent of the governed”.
And so we see the eternal dichotomy attending all such governments. Do those whom we elect to represent us try to enforce our “unvarnished majority will” by their action . . . or . . . do they try to enact that which they feel is in our “best interests”?
Do those elected poll the constituency to learn our desires and vote accordingly regardless of the elected official’s best judgment, assuring the continuing immediate support of voters . . . or . . . do they collect information often exclusively available to them and vote as they feel would be best even if counter to the present desires of those “back home”, trusting that the official’s courageous stand will be recognized and rewarded “later on”?
Do elected people always do what is best for their individual district, with no thought as to how this will effect lesser and greater political subdivisions . . . or . . . do they consider and support what is best for the largest area they can effect even if this means disregarding voter direction as the official aims for a “better, overall result” in the “long run”?
Do those we elect consider the needs and desires of those who did NOT vote for them . . . or . . . are these officials responsible only to those who voted them in?
And what about those who did NOT vote at all? Or, couldn’t legally vote at all?
What is the duty of an elected official in a democratic republic?
Take the money and run?