Quote:For any one opinion, certainly, but to be judged by the mass of constituents, why not? At least this may prompt people to consider what their representative has done to earn their wages, which after all are a stipend collected from the masses themselves. If they work for me, and yes, I do value their judgment, then beyond the periodic vote, poor performance would yield to them a paltry wage. As for the Bush years, I sometimes feel like I would like my money back.
There is no reason to turn their salary into a popularity contest. At barest minimum, it will be a strong financial incentive to "bring home the bacon." Such behaviour is already widespread, on the force of nothing more than regional pride and the need for re-election. Do you really want to link salaries to it?
Imagine a representative who stands up, against a bill she knows (and the public knows) will bring thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to his constitutency and says "I'm sorry, but this is not in the interest of the public at large, however profitable it would be for my constituents." Now, maybe enough voters in her constituency will look the other way, or even appreciate her moxie, that she won't lose the next election. But it will cost her in popularity. Do you really want to punish that? There is already a check for poor representation on election day. Could the paltry savings to the public possibly be worth it?
-Jester
Afterthought: It is also an encouragement to Gerrymandering, even in safe seats for incumbents.