Find Insurance Online

Micheal Bennet, who represented Colorado as a U.S. Senator, told a journalist in 2009 that the possibility of losing his seat  in 2010 should not hold him back from voting for health-care reform even if it were unpopular in Colorado.   Voting in line with the best interests of his fellow citizens would evince a degree of political integrity that I suspect few in the biz have today. However, might a representative be wrong and his or her constituents right about the long term best interest? Is a U.S. senator necessarily smarter or more capable of insight? Lest Bennet be criticized here for failing to have represented his constituents, one might take a look back at Madison’s Notes to the constitutional convention. 

The US Senate was designed or intended to represent the State governments and to serve as a check on the US House, whose members are supposed to vote according to the ephemeral passions of their constituents.  The difference between taking a long term view and voting on the basis of the mood at the moment can be seen by contrasting an election every  six years from one every two. The different lengths of the respective terms in office is no accident, my friends.  So it turns out that if the U.S. senator tells his constitutents that he is voting contrary to what they think is best now, he is acting as the office has been designed.  Those people who are wont to criticize such a senator tacitly presume that they cannot be wrong about what is best for themselves—which is exactly why a check on them and the US House is needed. Of course, where the best interest of the electorate differ from that of the state government, a U.S. senator is in a real pickle, as he or she is charged with representing his or her state as a polity and to resist current pressure from the citizens therein who are his or her electorate.  It is possible that there is an internal inconsistency in the aims of the U.S. Senate, particularly where providing a check on the representative democracy in the U.S. House is at odds with the interests of the state government.  Perhaps the U.S. Senate should be redesigned so as to be oriented to one principal function.  In terms of federalism, this would have to be providing the state governments with a direct involvement in the general government of the union. However, what would then serve as a check on the proclivity in the U.S. House to mirror the momentary passions of the people?

Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/22/freshman-dem-passing-health-care-reform-worth-losing-my-seat/