I don't know that this fits here; but, will park it here because it is a Primary consideration ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

I heard a candidate for the Democratic nomination talking about not being swayed by polling and calling that (an admirable quality of) "leadership."

That got me to thinking ... "In our current form of government, i.e., a representative democratic republican, ... is it really?"

Isn't "leading" the people to and/or governing from one's personal values positions antithetical to representative democratic republicanism?

Now, I understand the risks ... if all elected officials governed from popular polling, jim crow and SSM prohibition, no doubt, would have lasted much, much longer; however, the opposite is just as true, as well ... I suggest that the only time we count an elected representative's substituting her/his judgement for ours, is when that "judgement" matches our parochial interests.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. A representative republic does not elect leaders. We elect representatives.

We the people are supposed to lead, to inform our representatives what we want them to do, and hold them responsible when they fail.

The Constitution, the guiding document, limits the power of the majority by protecting individual rights, and defining who has rights and what those rights are.

When I vote, I am never in the market for a leader to follow. Charismatic leaders with groups of followers who accept without that whatever the leader says are very dangerous to our form of government.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Agreed ...

I find it interesting that the very people making the most noise about authoritarianism, are the same calling for a "leader" ... whether it is in the Obama Presidency, or in someone new.

I think the leadership effect(?) is pointed in the wrong direction ... we, the electorate, don't need to be lead to policy positions; rather, we need someone to apply leadership in governance to express the policy positions we select.

[DanTex]

2. It's basically as you described. When a politician goes against the polls in the way we like,

that politician is being brave. When they go against polls in the way we don't like, that politician is ignoring the will of the people.

[snot]

3. Agreed.

But there are important differences among these scenarios:

1. Candidate has X position, has always had X position, and sticks with it. (Admittedly, could just be stubborn).

2. Candidate had X position, changes position, acknowledges that they've changed their mind about it and explains why.

3. Candidate had X position, changes position, acknowledges and explains that although they have not changed their own opinion, they are bowing to the will of their constituents.

4. Candidate had X position, changes position, tries to act like they never had the previous position, or otherwise tries to hide it or explain it away.

And if the candidate never makes a stand for an unpopular position, or the candidate's position always seems to match either the big money position or whatever it will take to get elected, I think we'd be foolish not to worry about the candidate's degree of commitment to the welfare of the 99%.

[frazzled]

4. I see the relation of polling and "leadership" like this

There is a time for every season.

Taking the issue of marriage equality as an example--the populace was not in the least bit ready to consider such a question even in the 1990s. But the gay rights movement, by bringing the issues to light and encouraging increasing numbers of closeted gays to come out over a decade or so (together with things as seemingly stupid as TV shows that featured gay characters) eventually made the country, or rather much of it, more receptive to the idea of gay rights and equality. There was hardly a family that didn't eventually understand they had a gay relative or neighbor or co-worker--something that had never been realized before. The time was finally ripe to take the issues to the legislative and judicial institutions. Had this been tried earlier, it would only have backfired. Witness the backlash Bill Clinton received after campaigning on the promise to allow all citizens, gay or straight to serve in the military. That backlash, when he took office, was so severe we ended up with an unhappy compromise in DADT.

A good leader should sense when the time is right to effect a major change. Short of that, he or she needs to set the stage for that change--even if it may not occur under his or her watch, and in the meantime, bide his or her time, not forcing legislation but preparing for it, and prioritizing the possible. Creating a wind at the back of change is an important role.

Or something like that. It's a constant dance--balancing the potential and the possible, and knowing when to strike when the iron is hot. And to work the sidelines, setting the stage, when it is not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. An accurate poll would represent the will of the people but some times the will of the people .

That, of course, doesn't mean the people can't get it "wrong".

[aikoaiko]

7. It depends on the context I think.

I don't see quotes so I don't think you are quoting someone, but not being swayed by polls doesn't necessarily mean one is ignoring the wishes of the public.

For example, one could think that the public has been mislead on a topic and therefor educational outreach may change public perception.