With election season bearing down hard upon us, politicians have begun to seek votes with increasing urgency. And, as you consider who to vote for, it is necessary to consider why you will vote for one candidate in preference to another.

Most people simply vote for the people they agree with. This could not be more destructive of a political practice.

It is the duty of a representative not to vote precisely according to his constituents’ desires — their interests — but to consider the interests of his constituents as they relate to one another and to balance them accordingly, creating a program of legislation that benefits us all. He does not occupy a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate for the purpose of taking orders. He is elected to make judgments about what is best for the whole body of voters.

In the words of the British statesman Edmund Burke, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Exactly how many times have children been spoiled rotten by being given everything for which they asked by loving parents, grandparents and godparents?

Burke went on to tell the electors of Bristol that Parliament is not a place where representatives of the various interests in England meet. The institution is a deliberative place where members carry out the interests of the whole country.

“You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.”

He went on to say that, if a constituent formed an opinion that would adversely affect the whole if implemented, that constituent’s representative should be as far from supporting the opinion as any other man.

Considerations of interest were one of the major concerns of the American men who wrote the Constitution in 1787 and were the first officeholders of the United States. We should share their concerns.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned against practicing politics according to factional interests and discipline:

“In the conflicts of rival parties … measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

Madison worried — accurately, as it turned out — that votes would be cast in the House and Senate based on the force of numbers behind a particular measure. Careful consideration of bills has lapsed, and votes are decided by popular opinion.

Henry Fairlie, modern political scientist, wrote that while a politician “may make appeals to the public,” he will “find that between elections the public does not have any vote that is useful to him.”

It is impossible to expect everyone to be able to participate in politics. Our republican system simply does not allow for such an occurrence. Ancient city states were conducted in such a way, and their democracies featured few, if any, checks and balances on government power. Those cities’ political lives were short lived, and violent at their end.

The Founders’ and Framers’ solution was to introduce representation into popular government. Representatives, who must worry about diverse constituencies, cannot simply vote however the ideology most common in their district wants them to. They must consider what such a vote would do to the remainder of the citizens. Representatives do not exist to give us what we want; they exist to give us what we need.

So, in deciding for who to vote this November, don’t choose the candidate who has bribed your eyes with flashy, colorful ads; and don’t vote for the “yes man” who agrees with everything you say and says everything you want to hear. Our House and Senate are not echo chambers. They are halls for political action.