PROFILE IN COURAGE: VOTING ON WAR AND PEACE IN AN ELECTON CAMPAIGN Democratic theory holds that citizens exercise their franchise as a way to express their judgment of those who have been elected to represent them. Madison probably would have said "to express their judgment of the policies passed by those who have been elected to represent them." The difference is significant. Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) might well be betting his seat on that difference. Early last Friday morning the United States Senate followed the House and voted to give President George W. Bush broad authority to wage war in Iraq. The vote was overwhelming; the President had bi-partisan support, though the Democrats supported him by a narrow margin: 29 in favor, 21 opposed. The Republicans supported the President with near unanimity, 48-1. James Jeffords (VT), the Senate's lone Independent, voted No. But I chose to look at that vote in another way. Of the 15 Republican senators running for re-election to the Senate, none voted NO. Every one supported the President. That is not surprising. What is surprising is that 10 of the 13 Democrats seeking re-election also supported the President. In two of those cases, senators John Rockefeller IV (WV) and John Kerry (MA), the senator running for re-election supported the President while the other senator from his state of the same party (Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy) voted NO. Another way to look at this vote is to state that a majority of the Democratic senators not on the ballot for re-election in 2002 opposed the President's request for broad war-making powers; a majority of those on the ballot supported that request. What about the three senators seeking re-election who opposed the President? Two are considered among the safest incumbents on the November ballot-Richard Durbin of Illinois and Jack Reed of Rhode Island. All observers place their races in the "safe Democrat" column. The third is Paul Wellstone. In his floor speech explaining his vote, Senator Wellstone concluded, "I would like to thank my staff for never trying one time to influence me to make any other decision than what I honestly and truthfully believe is right for the State I represent, . . . " His clear implication was that other senators' staffs might well have asked their boss to cast the right vote politically. Senator Wellstone vies with Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) for having been on the short end of most 99 to 1 votes. On the one hand, he seems to be banking on the fact that his constituents respect him for that independence and that, even if they disagree with his vote this time, they will support him in November. On the other hand, Senator Wellstone seems not to care; he is casting the vote that he thinks is right for his constituents and for the nation, regardless of the electoral consequences. In his famous speech to the electors of Bristol, Edmund Burke, lawyer, philosopher, and politician, stated, "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." Burke maintained that a representative should look to the future, to what constituents would want five years hence, whether they knew it or not. I suppose Paul Wellstone would hold to both of those theories of representation. But, as a political scientist before he went to the Senate, Wellstone also knows that the citizens of Bristol turned Burke out of office. And therein lies the dilemma facing legislators who are candidates when facing votes on highly salient issues on the eve of an election. Most citizens cannot recall five votes that their senators or representatives have cast in any session of Congress. But many can recall one controversial vote on a highly publicized issue just weeks before an election. Does being a good representative imply casting a vote that citizens would agree with or giving one's best judgment, even if that is in opposition to citizens? Of course, that question has no correct answer. The answer is for each of us as citizens to give when we cast votes for those who represent us in the Senate and the House. What is also clear is that Paul Wellstone and others like him have given a clear indication of how they would answer that question. Perhaps the citizens of Minnesota will return him to the Senate despite this vote. Perhaps they will return him because of this vote-either because they agree with him (though his Republican opponent, former St. Paul mayor Norm Coleman, says his vote shows how out of touch with the people Wellstone is) or because of the independence he has shown in casting it and their belief that one with that independence represents them best. Or perhaps, they will turn to Coleman and send Senator Wellstone back to the classroom. We will see in about three weeks-and each of us can then reflect back on the meaning of Wellstone's stand of principle and what it says about our electoral process.