If people are getting represented... what's all the complaining about?!

If that were the case, you'd see more politicians adopting this tactic.
But in our mass media soundbite press of today, explanations generally fall by the wayside. People determine your "scores" for various labels on the basis of a vote alone (and those are the "informed" voters!).
Politicians, quite smartly, know that the press will jump on whatever is contraversial about a vote alone. Either Congressman X voted against the "Please don't kill our children bill" or Congressman X voted for the same bill, one which greatly decreased civil liberties.

Politicians act the way they do because they know how the media will react and thus how the people will react.

Politicians can already be held accountable for how they vote... including refusal to vote. But people don't do it.
A representative democracy is as good as the reps running and the people who pick them.


You're assuming that the people who vote based on name recognition are swayed by such statistics (which can already be inferred under the current system if people are motivated enough to look). The soundbite of "voted against 80%" might have some effect... but not much greater than the soundbite "failed to vote 80% of the time".
The majority of people are more likely to vote based on what they think is going on in their own lives... not on whether their congressmen agree with their neighbors.

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

And I do not need to know.

At this point you're disagreeing with me just to disagree.
If people don't hold them accountable, THEN THEY ARE NOT HELD ACCOUNT ABLE. Game over. Forcing them to vote MAKES THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

And you're really trying to tell me that a politician wants to be held accountable? Do you know anything about politics? C'mon. Don't just disagree to hold a pissing contest.

They are not being held accountable BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Being that the people are ultimately the ones who decide on reps and should be, I don't see how adding more policy with the intent of changing their voting behavior (which would not work anyway, mind you) would be a good thing.

No it doesn't. It will just change the nature of the soundbites and the behavior of politicians to avoid them. The same people are voting... the people who vote for reasons completely seperate from this issue (the great majority), the informed (who can figure out what the reasoning is behind a politician's choices anyway), and of course the pretentious "informed" who care about things like someone's "liberal" or "conservative" score without looking at deeper context (who are just looking for a good reason to like or dislike whoever it is they already like or dislike).

Then we'd have to move on to the next experiment in changing voter behavior through control of representative...

Where did I say a politician wants to be held accountable?
I think a bigger issue is that the average voter doesn't want to hold a candidate accountable (and in fairness, sometimes this is rational).
I'd also suggest most people do not care as much about this issue as you seem to think they do.

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

And I do not need to know.

With this congress does anyone want them voting on anything?

Hell, I don't even care about the issue anymore. There are no good arguments against it, yet people can so easily dismiss it.

I personally hate politicians. I don't think they should be paid in the first place, and I hate the fact that they're given power but they choose not to use it, because they would rather care about one person, themselves, than care about everyone else - which is their job, if I'm not mistaken. They are a minority of one, deciding the fate of three hundred million.

excellent post. my answer is YES. and I'm glad others agree: we elect them so we don't have to vote on all the small things ourselves, non decision sometimes is as bad as a bad decision

__________________
Obama, Bob Gates, Colin Powel, Hillary Clinton and other war criminals from Bush administration… Yes, it's a change we can forget about, because do not forget, it was a candidate brought to you by a non democratic media, while any real candidate has been obscured by it.

You will not see any change until you unite for democratic media.

I agree also...
I say that if a congressman or senator misses more than 5 votes or vote present more than 5 times... There should be a special election to replace them.... I don't think they should even be allowed to vote present!
If their night life keeps them too busy to do their job then they should be fired... It is what happens in the real world!

OG

Yes, it should be made mandatory that congressmen vote...eventually. We shouldn't force and rush the congressmen, this can lead to mistakes in trying to quickly pass a bill or issue or etc. Instead they should introduce a mandatory voting bill that makes the congressmen vote for every issue, but a time frain should be stressed and heavily specified. For example, a congressman has five more days to decide his position after 2/3rds of his peers decide.

If we elect representatives that do not represent us, why not represnt ourselves? If our representatives continue to fail us, we might have to look into other "types" of democracy.