I can think of one good reason why not.
What if it's a bill that the congressman neither strongly agrees nor disagrees with. It's very possible.
It would really (*)(*)(*)(*) me off to see a lousy bill pass or a great bill fail simply because some guy who really didn't care one way or the other was forced to a binary decision.

It's easy for us to babble about how every policy must be agreed with or disagreed with... but I really doubt it's like that in real life. Some policies really do have equal good and bad.

It's kind of like with voters who don't care who gets elected at all- they do us a favor by staying home!

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

What bill doesn't affect someone?

Any bill might affect someone (often in ways that are unclear at the time of the passing). But that does not mean that every congressman can come to a clear yes or no on every bill. Sometimes the perceived bad and good equal out. Then what?
Then a congressman screws up the whole process simply because he is forced to flip a coin.

Let the people with more to ride on the consequences of the bill (so the good outweighs the bad or bad the good) decide.
Of course an abstained vote is a de facto no vote.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

My point is, the bill affects someone, and it likely that someone is represented by a congressmen.

Even if it's a toss up with the number of people, the congressmen still has a say. That's why he's elected, to vote.

And that's not really the issue. The issue is that there are congressmen that are dodging issues for the sake of their political career.

If politicians are able to have their cake and eat it too... ie both not vote against a bill named "Boy-do-I-Love-America" and not be held responsible for the consequences if the bill passes...
I don't see how that is a problem of the law. That is a problem with voters falling for soundbites.
Illegalizing soundbites and feel-good bill names would accomplish far more. Too bad that's not a realistic option (not that forcing votes is).

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Excellent point, Raharu. Regardless of how the congressman personally feels about the bill, someone he represents undoubtedly does have an opinion.

It is his job to evaluate every piece of legislation based on how his constituents will be affected and vote accordingly.

__________________

And if he comes to the conclusion that pros and cons are equal?
Should he just make a decision arbitrarily?
That's all forced decision would accomplish.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Honestly, I seriously doubt there is ever a situation that is completely balanced. If he is doubt, he should turn to his constituents for direction.

Believe it or not, a politician can still still talk to those who elected him after he has taken office.

I understand what you're saying, Java. But I think our representatives vote based on how their personal futures will be affected, and not based on how those who hired them will be affected. By not voting and not representing their constituents, they are not doing their job.

__________________

And the system is dependent on these two things being equal.
Politicians should be out to preserve their careers and make self-interested decisions. Our system is built around that expectation.
The main problem is that either voters are not staying informed or are making decisions regardless of some of these decisions... or that there just are not enough people running to supply a strong alternative.
I don't think setting up laws forcing a vote will really help the root problem.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

The root of my problem is that politicians do it for their political career. Not that people aren't getting represented.

If a politician votes differently than what he feels, then he should easily be able to point to a letter or reason why he did that. He should have a political history. Then we could see how good he was at representing his people vs. his own beliefs, and we could understand a lot about him in the event he runs for president, I'm obviously talking about Obama.

This will make politicians far FAR more diligent, because they will be held accountable for how they vote. Did you know that 90% of people elected get reelected simply because they were there before? Do you know why that is? Because people don't care enough to go around and look up that is so well hidden, but if the person voted against his people 80% of the time, well that's a solid number and a good reason to change your vote.