Again this head line should read:"Democrat poll shows that if asked
the right questions in the right way: Congressmen should live in district the
represent"It would be really telling if ANY of the polls Dan
Jones runs ever looked like what the actual state voters felt.
Except when they are gerrymandered out. The republicans were carving up the
state...way to go Matheson!!
With all respect - or disrespect - to the public, isn't their opinion on this
matter entirely irrelevant?The Legislature has spoken, the public's
opinion is meaningless. What are we going to do, mount a referendum? Vote in a
Democratic Legislature? Waste of paper and ink, waste of Internet resources.Then again, if they think they can defeat Matheson with a quick change
of the law, it might change on the first day of the 2012 session.
Geographic representation is only one way that democratic, representative
elections occur. Perhaps even more important is whether or not the person
elected into office holds the equivalent overall values and beliefs on important
policy issues as the majority of the district in which they will represent.
I love America- I love the Constitution- I love representation- oh yeah which
district do I live in? Ohhh who cares what is the letter next to the name
because that is how I will know how to vote- how very American and how very
telling of most voters but in a state like Utah where so many claim such
reverence for the US system.
The US Constitution just says the member of congress has to reside in the state.
The fact that Utah doesn't try to amend the US Constitution should be good not
It only makes common sense that representatives reside in the area they
represent, after all, I don't want SLC or special interest groups to be our
voice in government, state or federal.Just to clarify the obvious
for the confused and muddle minded career politician, what people want with
their government is "equal" representation for where they live. A
representative living in SLC does not know how the people of St George want from
their government.I am for better regulatory rules of engagement and
this change while we are at it should make all elected positions of
representation be forced to prove citizenship by 2 or 3 generations. We need to
get rid of 1xt generation government with their conflict of interest baggage and
split loyalty of who they serve, the United States or other foreign peoples
interests, their parents and family and government.
You really need a Poll to figure this out?How are you fairly represented
by someone who doesn't even live in the district they 'represent'? Makes the guy
nothing more than a hired lobbyist, not a representative of the people.
I agree, they should live in the District they represent. There are a couple of
houses in my neighborhood in Kearns that Sandstrom could buy for a good price
now. Still won't vote for Sandstrom.
It won't make any difference whether or not any of these
"representatives" live in their districts or not. They don't
represent ordinary voters by any stretch of the imagination.They
answer only to their corporate and party masters.The rest of us
I have to say that I don't see a problem in being represented by someone who
does not live in my district.In England, members of Parliament are
not required to live within the district they represent. For example, Winston
Churchill lived outside the district he served.As for me, so long as
the majority of voters in a district are for a particular candidate, his or her
residence within the state should not make a difference.
Here's a better idea. Congressmen should get paid the median income for the
district they represent.There's a great way to undo some of the
greed and corruption which has a stranglehold on our government.I'm
sure all our elected representatives would vote differently if they made what
the average voter in their district made. How can the folks in DC claim to
represent any of us if they don't know what it is like to live our lives?
I agree....If congress members don't have to live in their own districts, what
would stop them from registering to vote in any district in the country just to
stack the votes for a favorite candidate?? This seems to hint of questionable
ethics a little bit....If it looks and smells like a rat.....
Did all these folks agree with this same question when asked if Jason Chaffetz
should have to live in the same district he represents, or do they only oppose
it when a Democrat is running outside his/her district?
Re: one old man | 8:00 a.m. Dec. 27, 2011 "They don't represent
ordinary voters by any stretch of the imagination:Actually our
legislators do represent the voters. That is how they got elected, and they do
listen to them.