Comments about ‘Congressmen should live in district they represent, poll shows’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Dec. 26 2011 6:00 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
MiddleRight
Orem, UT

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.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Except when they are gerrymandered out. The republicans were carving up the state...way to go Matheson!!

10CC
Bountiful, UT

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.

tabuno
Clearfield, UT

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.

XelaDave
Salem, UT

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.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

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 bad.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

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.

Dektol
Powell, OH

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.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

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.

one old man
Ogden, UT

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 don't count.

AlanSutton
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

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?

kkodey
Salt Lake City, UT

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.....

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

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?

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments