A Hypothetical...

[UncleBob]

Pretend you've just been elected to a public office.
You're looking put your seal of approval (vote/signature) onto a bill (law/ordinance/etc.).
Now, you strongly feel that what is in this bill is good - nay, great and is the direction your area (city, county, district, state, country) needs to go in.
However, you've been contacted by many, many of the people you were elected to represent. They don't like this bill. At all. You've been contacted 3:1 against the passage of this bill.

Do you:

A) Try to convince the people that this *is* a good bill, and if they still don't understand/agree, pass it anyway because it's for the greater good.
B) Try to convince the people that this *is* a good bill, and if they still don't understand/agree, do not pass it because you were elected to represent the will of the people.
C.) Secretly have a high profile celebrity killed, so no one will be talking about what's really important.

 

[depascal22]

A You're not elected to represent the will of the people. You're elected to act in the best interest of the people.

 

[RAMSTORIA]

well, ideally politicians would do B. but i think a lot of them do A and get reelected anyway.

 

[speedracer]

I think I would hold a public forum and let the naysayers take some shots at me. If they're right, they're right. If they're wrong, I could address them in real time without letting the echo chamber pretend there's no good refutation of their argument. You can't do it every time, but you could do it when it looks like the other side is gaining traction and you know they're full of shit. Or if you're genuinely unsure about what direction to go in. I don't think most Lege members even know what's in their bill 95% of the time.

If it's in the interests of the nation/state/whatever and you damn well know the entity will be better off, there's no reason not to vote for it, even at the cost of your hide.

 

[elprincipe]

Even if you can't convince the majority, you've got to do what you think is right. Anything else is irresponsible. Hopefully your constituents will come around to your view after seeing results. If not, at least you will leave office with a clear conscience. Of course, this presupposes that you aren't making a career of politics, in which case the answer is either (B) or (C).

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='UncleBob']C.) Secretly have a high profile celebrity killed, so no one will be talking about what's really important.[/QUOTE]

Which crackpot website did you get that from?

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Which crackpot website did you get that from?[/QUOTE]

lol... I don't think (although wouldn't be surprised) that it's an actual view point someone is putting forth. I just wanted a "C" answer. I thought about going with "Start a war so people will ignore whatever you're doing at home.", but since I left the question open for virtually any level politician and the mayor of Carmi isn't going to be starting any wars, I went with something that, in theory, any politician could do.

You have to admit though, if it was someone's plan, it worked beautifully.

 

[spmahn]

The answer is obviously A. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made, and cannot be done so with emotions in mind. The general population will always consider issues in terms of black and white, but as we've seen in the past, almost nothing is ever black and white, just a lot of different shades of gray.

 

[Magehart]

I like the idea of holding a public forum so everyone can voice their opinion. What everyone assumes so far is that your decision is the right one. Lots of times the politician has the wrong idea but believes that it is truly for the greater good. So I think it's better when there's significant resistance to step back and find out why.