Who do our Representatives represent?

In 2014, I wrote a post which was critical of some inflammatory comments made by then Rep. Michele Bachmann regarding immigration issues. As a registered voter in the state of Minnesota, and with Michele Bachmann being a Representative from Minnesota, I felt strongly that I needed to voice my discontent with her comments. The tie to Minnesota here was the key. I can certainly be critical of decisions made by other politicians from around the country (or anyone outside of politics, for that matter), but this specific connection was one major source of motivation for the post I wrote.

This is one of the things pushed for voters living in our representative democracy, to connect with our Representatives and offer our convictions and opinions with regards to their positions and decisions. However, as I noted at the end of the post, I didn’t live in Rep. Bachmann’s district. Technically, by the strictest (or some may say, most accurate) reading of the definition, she didn’t represent me. Even so, I did feel that her position as a Representative from my state, whether from my specific district or not, and her position as a Christian reflected on me in some way, and that I needed to speak out.

While the religious piece has its own set of thoughts and intricacies, my focus here is more on the geographic side. While I admittedly have no evidence to support my thoughts on this, I think there is a large group of people who hear only “Representative from ______,” and do not go further to explore the specific area the members of the House represent. Indeed, I believe there are times when the Representatives do in fact speak for the whole state. This was the impetus for that portion of my argument 7 years ago, and it is an item I have continued to ponder since then.

My thoughts about representation have flared up again in recent weeks, largely due to representatives from the state of Colorado. I lived in Colorado for nearly 5 years, and when different Representatives came up in the news in the wake of January 6, I couldn’t help but wonder whether they represented the district I had lived in. In each specific case, neither of the Representatives I looked up would be my Representative now, but as I began to see more statements and actions from Rep. Lauren Boebert, I found an eerie similarity to my thoughts from the past with regards to Michele Bachmann. I found myself once again asking questions: even though I never lived in her district, or indeed spent much time in her district, would she not, at least partially, have represented me?

This question, and my answer (so far), probably speaks largely to my legal and political philosophy. On the one hand, almost all members of Congress are not my representatives. I do not live in their district, and cannot vote for or against their election to Congress. At the same time, the decisions made by all of these people generate policy which directly affects everyone living in this country, which, selfishly, includes me. While this may not technically count as representation, I think the idea that there may be some “guilt by association,” whether as a citizen of a specific state or the country, holds at least some small amount of significance when  we consider the question of who represents us.

This last point brings me to my new concern (if I may dig out the lede I have so thoroughly buried). I’ve often toyed with the hypothetical question of how I might vote on legislation if I were in Congress. Would I vote in line with the feelings of the majority of my district? Would I vote the way I felt was right, leaning on the fact that the majority voted for me and the views I held? Might there be some other option, or some situational differences in my positions based on the issue at hand? I find this to be an incredibly difficult question to answer, even just on a hypothetical level, and at the moment I’m glad I don’t have to answer it.

That said, there is a group of people who do need to answer this question; and, interestingly, it seems to be a question some of them have been answering publicly in recent weeks. “I represent the people of this place, not that place;” “the people of my district are concerned with such and such issue;” “the people of my state/district want answers about this certain thing.” This, undoubtedly, is the foundation of a representative democracy, and is the reason the voices of voters are so important. Our representatives should be listening to us. But I’ve found myself concerned at the way some of the members of Congress have been using this language. There has been some public pushback that some of the ideas pushed in connection to the above positions are willfully fallacious, and that the people making the statements should “know better.” I share some of the ideas of this pushback, but my fear is that some of these people do “know better,” and that they are making statements in order to do what they want while hiding behind an image of putting their representees first.

I also think this is where, whether considering my hypothetical responses or Congressional members’ actual responses, answers to the previously posed questions become the most morally, ethically, politically, and practically difficult. If the majority of a district believes a lie, or pushes for something unethical or illegal, what is the responsibility of the Representative? If a Representative speaks for an entire group, what is their responsibility to the minority opinion in that group? What is their responsibility to the people outside of the group they represent? And what is our responsibility if we think someone who is not technically our representative is acting unethically, or immorally, or is using a situation to benefit themself rather than the people they represent.

As always, I have found myself asking questions I cannot fully or confidently answer. I do think, though, that asking them has demonstrated at least some of my thoughts. While I know that I must at least attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt that people are attempting to do what they think is best for the country, and that there is at least a small element of holding to a conspiracy in believing something that has not been proven, I find I cannot help but ask the questions.