A POL question

If someone lives in a rural, agricultural area and his/her congressional representative pushes policies and pork that benefit local (rural, agricultural) interests, yet the larger nation is suburban/urban and non-agricultural, should that person have the expectation that national policy should mirror his/her parochial interests or should that person have the expectation that his/her parochial interests might not be the same as those of the larger nation and therefore not expect to call the shots?

So who carries the day, the Tulare minority or the Tampa majority?

That is the beauty of the American system......the Rural states have an equal vote in the Senate and a lesser vote in the House Of Representatives......it kinda balances things out.

Now - we probably need term limits in both, but that is another discussion.

So we're not at gridlock then. We're at balance. Good to know.

Thank God for "Balance" when two thirds of the government insists on spending beyond its means and cannot even pass a budget when they controlled three thirds (100% for EllenMonster) of the Government.

In some cases one should vote for their constituents but in other cases they should vote fort he country. For example, an Iowa rep should vote against continuing ethanol subsidies since it is a waste even though it benefits Iowa farmers. On the other hand a NY rep should vote against funding a new tunnel since the benefit doesn't justify the cost

hoops, that is perhaps the most naive statement uttered here. I do not at ALL disagree with your premise. Ain't gonna happen. All politics is local, and the farmer chanting Tea Party slogans is gonna turn commie real quick if he losses his subsidy at the hand of his Congressional rep.

Ken's argument presumes Senators and Congressmen represent the best interest of their constituents and not the special interest groups that fund their campaigns. If this were not the case then it would be a worthy topic of discussion.

Ken being facetious? Get out.

I believe that PJ has stated the truth.

Gotta go pretty much with pj on this one...with the caveat that some "special interest" groups are more special than others.