Different politics?
December 13, 2009 9:28 AM Subscribe
I need input on what I consider to be a different set of politics than currently exists in the world today.
Over the past month I've started thinking about taking a position in politics that I consider to be unusual. I haven't found much info about this type of position online, so I'm turning to the hive mind for some help.
Essentially, what I'd like to do is try running for office, but instead of promoting some specific agenda, I'd promote the will of the people. Whatever the majority of the people wanted, I would work to implement. My personal feelings on matters would be put aside and I would only be in office to work towards what the people want. There would of course be a lot of minor details that would have to be worked out (how to give people information about the topics they are voting on, conducting voting, issues that can't be put to a vote [national security, etc] etc) but I don't want advice on that aspect, so please refrain.
What I'm most interested in is the actual position itself from a sky-high big picture view. That is, how successful do you think a person would be if they ran for office and didn't say things like "I'm for X and against Y" but instead said things like "If the majority of the people want X, then I'll work to give them X." What types of obstacles would they face, and would the people of this (or any) country be open to such a different style of politicking?
In my mind, this is different than the approach most politicians take. Most politicians say "I'm against Y and for X" but I've never heard of someone who was willing to set aside his or her personal feelings on matters and simply act as a representative of the people, so I'm extremely interested in hearing what people would think. My personal opinion is that this type of approach could be extremely well received, but I have a looming feeling that I'm being too idealistic and that this type of approach would only work for a very small section of the populace.
(anon because my username is intertwined with my real name, and I don't want people knowing that I'm considering this...yet)
Over the past month I've started thinking about taking a position in politics that I consider to be unusual. I haven't found much info about this type of position online, so I'm turning to the hive mind for some help.
Essentially, what I'd like to do is try running for office, but instead of promoting some specific agenda, I'd promote the will of the people. Whatever the majority of the people wanted, I would work to implement. My personal feelings on matters would be put aside and I would only be in office to work towards what the people want. There would of course be a lot of minor details that would have to be worked out (how to give people information about the topics they are voting on, conducting voting, issues that can't be put to a vote [national security, etc] etc) but I don't want advice on that aspect, so please refrain.
What I'm most interested in is the actual position itself from a sky-high big picture view. That is, how successful do you think a person would be if they ran for office and didn't say things like "I'm for X and against Y" but instead said things like "If the majority of the people want X, then I'll work to give them X." What types of obstacles would they face, and would the people of this (or any) country be open to such a different style of politicking?
In my mind, this is different than the approach most politicians take. Most politicians say "I'm against Y and for X" but I've never heard of someone who was willing to set aside his or her personal feelings on matters and simply act as a representative of the people, so I'm extremely interested in hearing what people would think. My personal opinion is that this type of approach could be extremely well received, but I have a looming feeling that I'm being too idealistic and that this type of approach would only work for a very small section of the populace.
(anon because my username is intertwined with my real name, and I don't want people knowing that I'm considering this...yet)
Consider the fact that what the majority of people want isn't necessarily the best, most effective, or morally just thing. If you need evidence, look at the history of civil rights (and, on a more prosaic level, the total financial disaster that is California with its voter referendums on taxes and spending).
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:36 AM on December 13, 2009 [10 favorites]
posted by you're a kitty! at 9:36 AM on December 13, 2009 [10 favorites]
People realize that no-one can be purely objective, and I think they would be very uneasy to vote for someone without an opinion or convictions on topics that concern them.
In short, you're trying to side-step representational democracy with absolute democracy - and mob-rule doesn't always work so well.
People realize that they do not have the time to go through the day-to-day nuances of each and every issue. That's why they elect the person who will best represent the average voter's perspective, and why rich, successful people are generally the candidates - the voters want over-achievers, not average guys, governing the country. (This is not always a recipe for success in office, but the electorate keeps picking the overdog, anyhow.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:39 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
In short, you're trying to side-step representational democracy with absolute democracy - and mob-rule doesn't always work so well.
People realize that they do not have the time to go through the day-to-day nuances of each and every issue. That's why they elect the person who will best represent the average voter's perspective, and why rich, successful people are generally the candidates - the voters want over-achievers, not average guys, governing the country. (This is not always a recipe for success in office, but the electorate keeps picking the overdog, anyhow.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:39 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
Representative democracy has been around a decently long time. I think if this approach were liable to work, we'd already see it in action. Part of it is because any system of governance requires, well, leaders - I don't think people want to elect followers. And though you have admonished us not to discuss what you think are "minor details," I think the practical aspect of it is another unappealing drawback - I don't think people want to vote incessantly or be polled non-stop.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 9:40 AM on December 13, 2009
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 9:40 AM on December 13, 2009
I have to admit that I would never vote for someone that took this position. Remember, for 8 years we had George Bush because that was the "will of the people" (ok, voter fraud aside)...
I want to vote for someone that has ethics, intelligence, wisdom, will work hard to understand the issues, and will "do the right thing"... and whose basic philosophy is in line with mine.
posted by HuronBob at 9:40 AM on December 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
I want to vote for someone that has ethics, intelligence, wisdom, will work hard to understand the issues, and will "do the right thing"... and whose basic philosophy is in line with mine.
posted by HuronBob at 9:40 AM on December 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
How do you determine what the majority want? If you are running weekly referendums then eventually people will only come out to vote for their pet issues. Some groups are more successful (...have the money and time) to influence votes on their issues. Also, frequent referendums cost money to do properly - is that what most people want their tax dollars spent on? What if new information is presented on an already decided item - can you revisit it or are you obliged to follow through with the original decision. A Canadian Politician proposed something similar; his name was Stockwell Day (leader of the later named C.C.R.A.P.), according to his proposed rules we had enough votes to have a referenendum on whether he should change his name to Doris.
posted by saucysault at 9:46 AM on December 13, 2009
posted by saucysault at 9:46 AM on December 13, 2009
I have no political education or experience, but the three things that strike me as a voter right off the bat are:
#1 - you might have trouble getting sufficient funds to run a populist campaign in this day and age
#2 - unless you were running unopposed your opponent could smear you as being either an "xxx" in disguise (libertarian, pro-choice, pro-life, UN puppet, you name it), or as being none of those but rather a hopeless idealist that, if elected, would never accomplish anything and so it would be a "wasted vote" (whether or not that were true, a smear is a smear)
#3 - laugh if you will, but I recall an old episode of the TV show "West Wing" where the president wants to put forth a new policy purely for the benefit of the people, but against the wishes of his own party...they promise to trot out every ridiculous and distracting piece of legislation they can find as retribution because any position they took on the president's issue would just make them "look bad" and cause them trouble with their own consituents...note that at no point did the question of whether the president's initiative was of any value or would be good for the country, it would just make other members of his own party look bad.
Of course, if I am correct the above just makes modern human society look immature and easily manipulated. That is why, if you are of a theistic slant, prayer is a good idea. If not, I suggest you view the movie "Idiocracy".
posted by forthright at 9:47 AM on December 13, 2009
#1 - you might have trouble getting sufficient funds to run a populist campaign in this day and age
#2 - unless you were running unopposed your opponent could smear you as being either an "xxx" in disguise (libertarian, pro-choice, pro-life, UN puppet, you name it), or as being none of those but rather a hopeless idealist that, if elected, would never accomplish anything and so it would be a "wasted vote" (whether or not that were true, a smear is a smear)
#3 - laugh if you will, but I recall an old episode of the TV show "West Wing" where the president wants to put forth a new policy purely for the benefit of the people, but against the wishes of his own party...they promise to trot out every ridiculous and distracting piece of legislation they can find as retribution because any position they took on the president's issue would just make them "look bad" and cause them trouble with their own consituents...note that at no point did the question of whether the president's initiative was of any value or would be good for the country, it would just make other members of his own party look bad.
Of course, if I am correct the above just makes modern human society look immature and easily manipulated. That is why, if you are of a theistic slant, prayer is a good idea. If not, I suggest you view the movie "Idiocracy".
posted by forthright at 9:47 AM on December 13, 2009
Sounds like a form of populism to me. But labels aside, there is the practical question of how do you know what the "will of the people" actually is? Opinion polls? Letters to the editor? Having an employee of your secret police living on every block?
posted by Forktine at 9:48 AM on December 13, 2009
posted by Forktine at 9:48 AM on December 13, 2009
Over the past month I've started thinking about taking a position in politics that I consider to be unusual.
I think you are unusual only in thinking about it with some theoretical rigor. As a position, it's pretty much what countless third-party candidates and other outsiders-for-office have claimed they'd do for a very long time. It has very big overlaps with the Bush/Palin "anti-Washington" stance that is a staple of the populist right.
I personally wouldn't vote for such a platform because I think having elected officials as representatives rather than delegates is one of the strengths of our current system. It has major weaknesses that your stance would address (eg. the way office-holders can be directly "bought" by special interests) but also major strengths that your stance would lack (ie. the idea that we select intelligent people with principles who then spend their professional lives thinking carefully about issues, instead of acting as neutral vehicles for the popular will of the moment). I think the strengths currently still outweigh the weaknesses, given the alternatives, and that the way to address the weaknesses is in any case not by replacing the rule of special interests with the "tyranny of the majority". (Rather, it's campaign-finance reform etc.)
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 9:49 AM on December 13, 2009
I think you are unusual only in thinking about it with some theoretical rigor. As a position, it's pretty much what countless third-party candidates and other outsiders-for-office have claimed they'd do for a very long time. It has very big overlaps with the Bush/Palin "anti-Washington" stance that is a staple of the populist right.
I personally wouldn't vote for such a platform because I think having elected officials as representatives rather than delegates is one of the strengths of our current system. It has major weaknesses that your stance would address (eg. the way office-holders can be directly "bought" by special interests) but also major strengths that your stance would lack (ie. the idea that we select intelligent people with principles who then spend their professional lives thinking carefully about issues, instead of acting as neutral vehicles for the popular will of the moment). I think the strengths currently still outweigh the weaknesses, given the alternatives, and that the way to address the weaknesses is in any case not by replacing the rule of special interests with the "tyranny of the majority". (Rather, it's campaign-finance reform etc.)
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 9:49 AM on December 13, 2009
While I'm sure your intentions are entirely noble, I think you vastly overestimate "the people's" interest in politics. Participatory democracy, which is the direction you seem to want to take, only works when citizens are actually engaged enough in civil issues that they can, well, participate. Even in Venezuela, where full-on participatory democracy has been implemented in some areas, turn-out still isn't great (or at least wasn't when I wrote a paper on it a few years ago). Your approach risks being hijacked by small groups of intensely organized special interest lobbies overshadowing larger groups of ambivalent voters.
And I agree with you're a kitty! - sometimes the majority shouldn't be listened to. Equality for all shouldn't be left to the musings of most.
But kudos for looking to bring badly-needed change into an electoral system that seems somewhat dysfunctional (watching from Canada, anyway; not that we're much better).
posted by just_ducky at 9:50 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
And I agree with you're a kitty! - sometimes the majority shouldn't be listened to. Equality for all shouldn't be left to the musings of most.
But kudos for looking to bring badly-needed change into an electoral system that seems somewhat dysfunctional (watching from Canada, anyway; not that we're much better).
posted by just_ducky at 9:50 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
What happens if the population is divided fairly equally? (Say, gay marriage.) What are you going to do then if there's no clear "will of the people?"
Really, I do think you have to pick a side and stick with it. I wouldn't vote for Mob Rule Guy at all. Sorry.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:52 AM on December 13, 2009
Really, I do think you have to pick a side and stick with it. I wouldn't vote for Mob Rule Guy at all. Sorry.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:52 AM on December 13, 2009
People vote for politicians who share* their values or goals, or people they trust** to do the job, not the guy who pledges to represent the 50%+1 of voters' opinion on each subject. Voters don't like someone who changes their convictions*** based on the latest polling data.
What you're proposing isn't a particularly new or novel idea, just one that hasn't been very successful.
* or claim to share
** or distrust least
*** or is perceived to- see I was for that bill before I was against it, etc
posted by theclaw at 9:52 AM on December 13, 2009
What you're proposing isn't a particularly new or novel idea, just one that hasn't been very successful.
* or claim to share
** or distrust least
*** or is perceived to- see I was for that bill before I was against it, etc
posted by theclaw at 9:52 AM on December 13, 2009
also, building on what saucysalt said, the practical problems with your plan become problems of principle. There's Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, whereby your voters might very easily inform you that they prefer option A to B and option B to option C but also option C to option A. And more generally the phenomenon whereby voters want many more government services at the same time as less taxation...
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 9:53 AM on December 13, 2009
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 9:53 AM on December 13, 2009
I would think that if you implemented your plan, neither prevailing party would endorse you as a candidate. With that in mind, you would need vast personal funds or sources of campaign donations available to even get on the ballot. Look at the history of success (i.e. lack thereof) of third parties in the United States (where I am assuming you are, though I admit I don't know that to be true). So the first issue from a practical standpoint would be how you would get elected.
Secondly, as raised very well above, going back to Plato, philosophically, and of significant consideration in earliest days of the United States have been fears about the 'tyranny of the majority'. The textbook example in the United States is the success of civil rights restrictions as a result of majority will. With that said, how would your "majority rules" campaign promises work in practice when a majority of your constituents wish you to take actions that are unconstitutional, barred by law or regulation, or otherwise simply patently (to you, or to a vocal minority) unjust?
Third, as a voter and lawyer with strong interests in certain political issues but no interest in others, I don't want to take responsibility for decision on every issue. I vote for politicians with whom I agree to absolve myself of the duty to be informed on every single issue, with the expectation that at least to some degree, they will vote in line with promises they have made. I don't want to have to be on constant alert; I want to know that so and so will vote for marriage equality and against restriction of reproductive choice. With all due cynicism about the extant political process, the idea of 'majority rules' on unpopular issues frightens me.
posted by bunnycup at 9:55 AM on December 13, 2009
Secondly, as raised very well above, going back to Plato, philosophically, and of significant consideration in earliest days of the United States have been fears about the 'tyranny of the majority'. The textbook example in the United States is the success of civil rights restrictions as a result of majority will. With that said, how would your "majority rules" campaign promises work in practice when a majority of your constituents wish you to take actions that are unconstitutional, barred by law or regulation, or otherwise simply patently (to you, or to a vocal minority) unjust?
Third, as a voter and lawyer with strong interests in certain political issues but no interest in others, I don't want to take responsibility for decision on every issue. I vote for politicians with whom I agree to absolve myself of the duty to be informed on every single issue, with the expectation that at least to some degree, they will vote in line with promises they have made. I don't want to have to be on constant alert; I want to know that so and so will vote for marriage equality and against restriction of reproductive choice. With all due cynicism about the extant political process, the idea of 'majority rules' on unpopular issues frightens me.
posted by bunnycup at 9:55 AM on December 13, 2009
Nthing what's been said above. (1) Determining "what the majority wants" is actually not possible for every decision you make, and (2) When it is possible, it does not always yield the best results since people can get all crazy and want to persecute minorities as scapegoats (that is just one example of the bad results that can happen).
I will also add that what the majority wants can be quite easily manipulated by small groups of people that have money and power - so you will end up just executing the will of the rich and powerful by proxy most of the time.
posted by molecicco at 9:56 AM on December 13, 2009
I will also add that what the majority wants can be quite easily manipulated by small groups of people that have money and power - so you will end up just executing the will of the rich and powerful by proxy most of the time.
posted by molecicco at 9:56 AM on December 13, 2009
1. You'd have a HUGE problem convincing potential voters that you'll put your own feelings (and positions, and beliefs) aside and simply doing whatever it is a majority of them want.
2. We still need leaders. We look to elected representatives to be those leaders, which is one reason why we punish them when they err.
3. You should spend some time getting to know local and state politicians, more particularly what they do and how they perform their jobs. While ultimately, they may be more beholden to power and money than any of us would like, the ones I know are responsive to the input from their constituents-- which is why concentrated letter and e-mail campaigns are often effective.
4. Given that people's opinions on important issues are too often shaped by marketing and astroturf campaigns and by biased "news," do you really think it's a good idea for representatives to base their actions on what they hear people saying? If that were the case, then any attempt to reform health care should be shut down immediately to stop creeping socialism, the Federal Reserve should be audited as an interim step to shutting it down, Obama should be removed from office for lack of qualifications, and prayers should be reinstituted in public schools...not because that's what a majority of Americans want, but because those are the loudest, most insistent opinions out there today. And I pretty much guarantee that those types of opinions would be the ones you would hear most often if you became a simple conduit for what you perceived your constituents wanted you to do.
Crowds may be "wise," but beware of who makes up the crowd and how the issue they're considering is phrased.
posted by missouri_lawyer at 9:57 AM on December 13, 2009
2. We still need leaders. We look to elected representatives to be those leaders, which is one reason why we punish them when they err.
3. You should spend some time getting to know local and state politicians, more particularly what they do and how they perform their jobs. While ultimately, they may be more beholden to power and money than any of us would like, the ones I know are responsive to the input from their constituents-- which is why concentrated letter and e-mail campaigns are often effective.
4. Given that people's opinions on important issues are too often shaped by marketing and astroturf campaigns and by biased "news," do you really think it's a good idea for representatives to base their actions on what they hear people saying? If that were the case, then any attempt to reform health care should be shut down immediately to stop creeping socialism, the Federal Reserve should be audited as an interim step to shutting it down, Obama should be removed from office for lack of qualifications, and prayers should be reinstituted in public schools...not because that's what a majority of Americans want, but because those are the loudest, most insistent opinions out there today. And I pretty much guarantee that those types of opinions would be the ones you would hear most often if you became a simple conduit for what you perceived your constituents wanted you to do.
Crowds may be "wise," but beware of who makes up the crowd and how the issue they're considering is phrased.
posted by missouri_lawyer at 9:57 AM on December 13, 2009
Well, another issue to consider is elections are really determined by a package of interests. For example group A might care about workplace equal rights, group B might care about the environment, and even if each group is a minority together they end up a majority.
If you just do whatever the "majority" of the people want, that might not be good enough to get you into power.
Plus, how would you measure "the will of the people". I bet a lot of politicians make those claims, and hardly come close to following through.
posted by delmoi at 10:11 AM on December 13, 2009
If you just do whatever the "majority" of the people want, that might not be good enough to get you into power.
Plus, how would you measure "the will of the people". I bet a lot of politicians make those claims, and hardly come close to following through.
posted by delmoi at 10:11 AM on December 13, 2009
A couple of thoughts:
(1) it seems it would be exceedingly difficult to ascertain the true "will of the people," vs. the "will of the whiners."
(2) people who feel strongly about particular issues may be disinclined to vote for you, because there's no assurance that you will support their position on those issues during your term. When you add up all the various "minority interest" issues, this group may in fact include the majority of voters!
posted by drlith at 10:12 AM on December 13, 2009
(1) it seems it would be exceedingly difficult to ascertain the true "will of the people," vs. the "will of the whiners."
(2) people who feel strongly about particular issues may be disinclined to vote for you, because there's no assurance that you will support their position on those issues during your term. When you add up all the various "minority interest" issues, this group may in fact include the majority of voters!
posted by drlith at 10:12 AM on December 13, 2009
This is called direct democracy. It's gone out of style somewhat but was used extensively in ancient Greece, and is still manifests itself today in the likes of voter referendums and ballot initiatives. ("Support Proposition X!"; different states have different laws) In general it's thought to work best with small populations.
Like others have said, one of the big theoretical problems with direct democracy is mob rule and the tendency to compromise the rights of the minority. This happens in representative democracy too, and we have various constitutional safeguards here in the USA and most other democracies. But in a direct democracy, with the removal of the political process, there is less recourse for those in the minority. Ultimately the government is supposed to be good for all of society, not just the majority.
Furthermore there are quite a few practical problems. Besides what others have said, do you really think most people have confidence they are in the majority and will make the best decisions? Do they really want to spend that much time and energy making decisions?
There are serious problems also because you are trying to set up a direct democracy in a system set up for a representative democracy. That is, you may find it nigh on impossible to function as a neutral facilitator in that situation. Obviously you can't put EVERYTHING up for a vote; who gets to decide what is voted on and what are the criteria? Also, even simply writing the question people vote on can have a huge effect on the outcome, which is pretty evident from a cursory examination of current polling practices.
Don't get me wrong, I think direct democracy can be a very good thing and I think there is some very cool potential for it in this digital day and age, but running for an office on a direct democracy platform seems unlikely to be successful.
On preview, what a lot of other people said.
posted by ropeladder at 10:15 AM on December 13, 2009
Like others have said, one of the big theoretical problems with direct democracy is mob rule and the tendency to compromise the rights of the minority. This happens in representative democracy too, and we have various constitutional safeguards here in the USA and most other democracies. But in a direct democracy, with the removal of the political process, there is less recourse for those in the minority. Ultimately the government is supposed to be good for all of society, not just the majority.
Furthermore there are quite a few practical problems. Besides what others have said, do you really think most people have confidence they are in the majority and will make the best decisions? Do they really want to spend that much time and energy making decisions?
There are serious problems also because you are trying to set up a direct democracy in a system set up for a representative democracy. That is, you may find it nigh on impossible to function as a neutral facilitator in that situation. Obviously you can't put EVERYTHING up for a vote; who gets to decide what is voted on and what are the criteria? Also, even simply writing the question people vote on can have a huge effect on the outcome, which is pretty evident from a cursory examination of current polling practices.
Don't get me wrong, I think direct democracy can be a very good thing and I think there is some very cool potential for it in this digital day and age, but running for an office on a direct democracy platform seems unlikely to be successful.
On preview, what a lot of other people said.
posted by ropeladder at 10:15 AM on December 13, 2009
As a voter, I want to elect a smart person who will make good decisions. I expect that person to be well-informed, to listen and consider a variety of viewpoints, including mine. There's more to it than voting on bills. There are coalitions to be made, committees that allow/don't allow bills to be voted on. The reason health care didn't pass under the Clintons is that they didn't know how to build political support. If it's just a matter of doing what the majority wants, we wouldn't have civil rights for non-whites, voting for women, and we still don't have equal rights for gay people. If it's just a matter of doing what the majority wants, we could automate that process, but government by referendum may not be working well in California.
I have friends with Political Science degrees, friends active in party politics, etc. The study of ways politics works is quite accessible, and larger than the scope of ask.metafilter. I encourage you to get active in local politics.
posted by theora55 at 10:23 AM on December 13, 2009
I have friends with Political Science degrees, friends active in party politics, etc. The study of ways politics works is quite accessible, and larger than the scope of ask.metafilter. I encourage you to get active in local politics.
posted by theora55 at 10:23 AM on December 13, 2009
A major obstacle would be getting anyone from any minority to vote for you in the first place. Black people, gay people, old people, disabled people, environmentalists (depending on the constituency), either liberals or conservatives (whichever one is a minority where you are): anyone who's fed up of taking stick from the majority will be likely to a) vote against you and b) point out loudly in the press how your policies are prejudiced against minorities.
posted by emilyw at 10:27 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by emilyw at 10:27 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is maybe the silliest thing I've ever read on here. You underestimate a few things:
a) how hard it is to accurately poll (assuming, of course, this is your mechanism for determining "the will of the people"; if it isn't, your thesis is even sillier). There's a reason that polls have margins of error, and why some polls get different results than others. It's not just a matter of getting a representative sample of voters, but also getting a measure about how much they actually care about the issue, and wording questions in a way that don't lead to a particular result. It's also mindbogglingly expensive, and you will have to have these polls on every vote you take. Hope you have deep pockets.
b) how much people care about, and know about, politics. Vanity Fair or some such did a poll of voters' understanding of the "public option" being debated now in the Senate. Only 20% claimed to be able to accurately explain this idea to someone else, and the actual number is surely much, much lower. Most people, for another example, couldn't tell you the difference between the "bailout" and the "stimulus". Policymaking is a very complicated thing, and most people just do not have enough grasp of the issues to make their opinions at all relevant or useful for a legislator.
c) how much the "will of the people", because of (b), is largely reactive: people don't generally know enough about policy to imagine a world any different than the one they currently live in, and so a representative who's a mere proxy for his constituents never accomplishes anything proactive. Even if you could get elected on a harebrained scheme like this, you'd be completely ineffective in office.
d) how sometimes large majorities can be convinced to believe truly awful, repugnant things, particularly if you're representing smaller, homogeneous districts. My home congressional district, for instance, would likely overwhelmingly support summary execution of terror suspects, an investigation into the president's citizenship, and racial profiling. In previous years it certainly would have supported lynching and Jim Crow. The will of the people, in addition to being difficult to ascertain and uninformed, is often actively immoral.
There's generally a reason why bedrock institutions like "representative democracy" work the way they do - you surely aren't the only person to have had this thought, but it's just not workable.
posted by downing street memo at 10:34 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
a) how hard it is to accurately poll (assuming, of course, this is your mechanism for determining "the will of the people"; if it isn't, your thesis is even sillier). There's a reason that polls have margins of error, and why some polls get different results than others. It's not just a matter of getting a representative sample of voters, but also getting a measure about how much they actually care about the issue, and wording questions in a way that don't lead to a particular result. It's also mindbogglingly expensive, and you will have to have these polls on every vote you take. Hope you have deep pockets.
b) how much people care about, and know about, politics. Vanity Fair or some such did a poll of voters' understanding of the "public option" being debated now in the Senate. Only 20% claimed to be able to accurately explain this idea to someone else, and the actual number is surely much, much lower. Most people, for another example, couldn't tell you the difference between the "bailout" and the "stimulus". Policymaking is a very complicated thing, and most people just do not have enough grasp of the issues to make their opinions at all relevant or useful for a legislator.
c) how much the "will of the people", because of (b), is largely reactive: people don't generally know enough about policy to imagine a world any different than the one they currently live in, and so a representative who's a mere proxy for his constituents never accomplishes anything proactive. Even if you could get elected on a harebrained scheme like this, you'd be completely ineffective in office.
d) how sometimes large majorities can be convinced to believe truly awful, repugnant things, particularly if you're representing smaller, homogeneous districts. My home congressional district, for instance, would likely overwhelmingly support summary execution of terror suspects, an investigation into the president's citizenship, and racial profiling. In previous years it certainly would have supported lynching and Jim Crow. The will of the people, in addition to being difficult to ascertain and uninformed, is often actively immoral.
There's generally a reason why bedrock institutions like "representative democracy" work the way they do - you surely aren't the only person to have had this thought, but it's just not workable.
posted by downing street memo at 10:34 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
It ought to be the happiness and glory of a Representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you; to any man, or to any sett of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the Law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
I'm amazed no one has broken out the Burke yet.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:36 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm amazed no one has broken out the Burke yet.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:36 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
Poli sci prof here. This is one of the very rare questions where I can actually speak with some authority.
To build on Joe's spleen, what you're describing is one pole of a classic distinction in styles or modes of representation. At one extreme you have the Burkean "trustee," who does whatever he thinks is best and, at the extreme, does whatever he thinks is best for the nation as a whole and ignores what is best for the district he represents.* What you're describing is the other end a pure "delegate."
It's not a particularly new thing. Granted, you won't find many politicians standing up and claiming "I don't give a fuck about anything and will do whatever you want," but that's because they use different language: "You want X, Y, and Z, and I will give it to you. Good and hard." Also too and as well, most politicians in semiprofessional state legislatures or higher are adept at finding out what (the politically relevant portion of) their district wants and "deciding" to do exactly that.
In practice, nearly all US politicians in offices people actually compete for follow an intermediate model called the "politico": when the district demands it, he's a delegate, but on issues where the district broadly doesn't give a crap one way or the other he follows his own judgment. Or her.
So your model wouldn't really do much different from normal practice -- when districts actually demand something, they generally get what they ask for.
*He laid this out in his Speech To The Electors Of Bristol, which was a speech he made after being elected from Bristol. At their next opportunity, the electors of Bristol invited Burke to pursue other lines of employment.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:27 AM on December 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
To build on Joe's spleen, what you're describing is one pole of a classic distinction in styles or modes of representation. At one extreme you have the Burkean "trustee," who does whatever he thinks is best and, at the extreme, does whatever he thinks is best for the nation as a whole and ignores what is best for the district he represents.* What you're describing is the other end a pure "delegate."
It's not a particularly new thing. Granted, you won't find many politicians standing up and claiming "I don't give a fuck about anything and will do whatever you want," but that's because they use different language: "You want X, Y, and Z, and I will give it to you. Good and hard." Also too and as well, most politicians in semiprofessional state legislatures or higher are adept at finding out what (the politically relevant portion of) their district wants and "deciding" to do exactly that.
In practice, nearly all US politicians in offices people actually compete for follow an intermediate model called the "politico": when the district demands it, he's a delegate, but on issues where the district broadly doesn't give a crap one way or the other he follows his own judgment. Or her.
So your model wouldn't really do much different from normal practice -- when districts actually demand something, they generally get what they ask for.
*He laid this out in his Speech To The Electors Of Bristol, which was a speech he made after being elected from Bristol. At their next opportunity, the electors of Bristol invited Burke to pursue other lines of employment.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:27 AM on December 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
Joe's spleen brings up the right guy. What you've independently invented here is the delegate model of representation, which is originally credited to Burke. Don't feel bad. I independently invented agnosticism once. Felt pretty silly when I found out they already had it, but it also kind of validated me.
I remember a poli sci class in college where we discussed three general theoretical types of representative. The one I remember the name for is the delegate, which is the one you conceived. He or she just does what the people want. Then there's the opposite, who only does what he or she thinks is right, without regard to constituent wishes or opinions. Then there was somebody halfway between those two. Realistically what we've got in almost every case is the middle one. It's that way mostly for practical reasons, where your theory meets the real world. (HA! On preview the good Professor above me has just explained this exact thing)
If you do only what you want, and it's at odds with your constituency, you'll get voted out. So at a minimum, you have to pay lip service and in general have to be visible casting votes and saying things that spin well with your constituency.
If you only do what your constituents want (see above for the challenges in figuring out what that is), and that's not in line with what the party needs, you'll likely find yourself a permanent backbencher who can't get a bill to the floor. Thus, you can't get anything done and get voted out. Or your record is all over the place, making you susceptible at election time as someone who is inconsistent and you get voted out. Realistically you have to play ball and make compromises to get things done, stay in office, and for your party to empower you. For practical reasons, a pure delegate style is not possible.
But even if none of the above were true, figuring out what people want is the real challenge. And even more difficult than that is for people to know what it is they want on each decision facing a legislator. Have you ever seen those videos from the tea party rallies and Sarah Palin book signings where the guy goes around and asks the people the most basic questions about the big issues and policy matters? They can't get past the vaguest notions of "freedom and... common sense" or "letting all these foreigners in..." Yes, they can selectively edit, but those videos are right on regardless. And the dirty little secret is that you could do the same thing at Obama rallies during the election. Almost nobody in the general public has enough of a grasp on the intricacies of policy or an understanding of the functioning of government or the horse trading involved in producing legislation to be relied on to make cogent policy decisions. And they don't have time to research or understand the issues and the myriad implications. And they're not accountable or subject to a vote.
Look at the health care reform legislation. Thousands and thousands of pages long and even the people working with it haven't read it all or understand all of its implications - and those people know more about it than anyone. The person on the street might have general theories and ideas about whether health care should be nationalized to some degree, but ask them for details and they've got nothing. Ask them about the costs and the funding - nothing. Ask them how the current system even works - nothing. Ask them how they'd broker a deal between all the competing interests in Congress - nothing.
Elected representatives are specialists, rather they become specialists, because they have to be. You might be able to clean out a cut or even stitch yourself up in an emergency, but you are not a surgeon and would almost certainly kill someone if you tried to give them an appendectomy. People specialize into that role because it requires advanced education, experience and skills. And those surgeons probably could not rebuild their cars' engines or fix their plumbing problems because they have not specialized in those things. They don't have the education, experience, or skills. Likewise, non-legislators would make a hash of lawmaking. Everybody has opinions, and everybody likes to have a say, but most of us really don't know what we're talking about.
I would call myself highly educated on the political process, and very current. I know political theory, history, and practice. I know a lot about the unofficial and behind the scenes stuff such as how lobbyists influence the process, the ways people exploit loopholes in campaign finance, parliamentary tricks to pass or derail bills, a good amount of detail about the budget, tricks they use to fund or defund pet projects or competing pet projects, and a lot more besides. And you don't want me making policy decisions because I'm too far removed from the process. I don't know enough. I've got a life, in which I pursue my own area of specialty, and spend most of my time working on things like paying the bills and maintaining a household. I vote for the people I estimate to be intelligent, capable, and savvy enough to make good decisions on my behalf in office. It's ultimately a crap shoot, but it's how our system works in practice. On some key issues I'll do some homework and let my representatives know my wishes, but they'll make hundreds of decisions and cast hundreds of votes on things I not only don't know are happening, but don't care to be involved in, and would be too underinformed to be relied upon if I did want to be involved. There isn't time.
The electorate does not know enough to make all of the policy decisions that need making. We'd all have to be a hell of a lot more educated and plugged in to be reliable decision makers, and we'd need a to spend a lot more of our time every day reading about, talking about, thinking about, and debating these issues. If somebody could sum each thing up for us and boil it down simply and just give us a multiple choice survey, even then it would take a substantial amount of time. And you're still subject to manipulation in that way by whoever words the questions and answers. In the end, with these impractical processes, we'd find ourselves back where we are now, which is a system where we simply delegate our vote and our judgment to the best person we can elect from amongst the choices and hope they make good decisions. If they don't, we hope the media will tell us. At least at election time. Hopefully in a nice little blurb or chart, because we're busy. I wish it were different but it's not.
posted by Askr at 11:56 AM on December 13, 2009 [3 favorites]
I remember a poli sci class in college where we discussed three general theoretical types of representative. The one I remember the name for is the delegate, which is the one you conceived. He or she just does what the people want. Then there's the opposite, who only does what he or she thinks is right, without regard to constituent wishes or opinions. Then there was somebody halfway between those two. Realistically what we've got in almost every case is the middle one. It's that way mostly for practical reasons, where your theory meets the real world. (HA! On preview the good Professor above me has just explained this exact thing)
If you do only what you want, and it's at odds with your constituency, you'll get voted out. So at a minimum, you have to pay lip service and in general have to be visible casting votes and saying things that spin well with your constituency.
If you only do what your constituents want (see above for the challenges in figuring out what that is), and that's not in line with what the party needs, you'll likely find yourself a permanent backbencher who can't get a bill to the floor. Thus, you can't get anything done and get voted out. Or your record is all over the place, making you susceptible at election time as someone who is inconsistent and you get voted out. Realistically you have to play ball and make compromises to get things done, stay in office, and for your party to empower you. For practical reasons, a pure delegate style is not possible.
But even if none of the above were true, figuring out what people want is the real challenge. And even more difficult than that is for people to know what it is they want on each decision facing a legislator. Have you ever seen those videos from the tea party rallies and Sarah Palin book signings where the guy goes around and asks the people the most basic questions about the big issues and policy matters? They can't get past the vaguest notions of "freedom and... common sense" or "letting all these foreigners in..." Yes, they can selectively edit, but those videos are right on regardless. And the dirty little secret is that you could do the same thing at Obama rallies during the election. Almost nobody in the general public has enough of a grasp on the intricacies of policy or an understanding of the functioning of government or the horse trading involved in producing legislation to be relied on to make cogent policy decisions. And they don't have time to research or understand the issues and the myriad implications. And they're not accountable or subject to a vote.
Look at the health care reform legislation. Thousands and thousands of pages long and even the people working with it haven't read it all or understand all of its implications - and those people know more about it than anyone. The person on the street might have general theories and ideas about whether health care should be nationalized to some degree, but ask them for details and they've got nothing. Ask them about the costs and the funding - nothing. Ask them how the current system even works - nothing. Ask them how they'd broker a deal between all the competing interests in Congress - nothing.
Elected representatives are specialists, rather they become specialists, because they have to be. You might be able to clean out a cut or even stitch yourself up in an emergency, but you are not a surgeon and would almost certainly kill someone if you tried to give them an appendectomy. People specialize into that role because it requires advanced education, experience and skills. And those surgeons probably could not rebuild their cars' engines or fix their plumbing problems because they have not specialized in those things. They don't have the education, experience, or skills. Likewise, non-legislators would make a hash of lawmaking. Everybody has opinions, and everybody likes to have a say, but most of us really don't know what we're talking about.
I would call myself highly educated on the political process, and very current. I know political theory, history, and practice. I know a lot about the unofficial and behind the scenes stuff such as how lobbyists influence the process, the ways people exploit loopholes in campaign finance, parliamentary tricks to pass or derail bills, a good amount of detail about the budget, tricks they use to fund or defund pet projects or competing pet projects, and a lot more besides. And you don't want me making policy decisions because I'm too far removed from the process. I don't know enough. I've got a life, in which I pursue my own area of specialty, and spend most of my time working on things like paying the bills and maintaining a household. I vote for the people I estimate to be intelligent, capable, and savvy enough to make good decisions on my behalf in office. It's ultimately a crap shoot, but it's how our system works in practice. On some key issues I'll do some homework and let my representatives know my wishes, but they'll make hundreds of decisions and cast hundreds of votes on things I not only don't know are happening, but don't care to be involved in, and would be too underinformed to be relied upon if I did want to be involved. There isn't time.
The electorate does not know enough to make all of the policy decisions that need making. We'd all have to be a hell of a lot more educated and plugged in to be reliable decision makers, and we'd need a to spend a lot more of our time every day reading about, talking about, thinking about, and debating these issues. If somebody could sum each thing up for us and boil it down simply and just give us a multiple choice survey, even then it would take a substantial amount of time. And you're still subject to manipulation in that way by whoever words the questions and answers. In the end, with these impractical processes, we'd find ourselves back where we are now, which is a system where we simply delegate our vote and our judgment to the best person we can elect from amongst the choices and hope they make good decisions. If they don't, we hope the media will tell us. At least at election time. Hopefully in a nice little blurb or chart, because we're busy. I wish it were different but it's not.
posted by Askr at 11:56 AM on December 13, 2009 [3 favorites]
1. You might get poor voter turn-out for your polls, compared to a single big election. If you base your policies on a poll where only 10% of people vote, would you be representing the electorate more accurately than having fixed policies at an election where 40% of people vote?
2. How would you make informed decisions on complex issues which the person on the street isn't informed about? In particular
* Issues where the arguments one way are simple and the arguments the other way are complicated. Protectionist tariffs on foreign imports would keep american jobs safe, right?
* Hundred-page appropriations bills that people don't have time to read and comprehend in their entirety. If you choose to offer summaries, the people writing the summaries will enjoy substantial power.
3. Athenian democracy let people directly vote on the issues, and produced fickle and often arbitrary results. For example, executing eight successful generals for not collecting survivors after a storm... then later changing their minds and executing the people who had accused the generals.
posted by Mike1024 at 12:59 PM on December 13, 2009
2. How would you make informed decisions on complex issues which the person on the street isn't informed about? In particular
* Issues where the arguments one way are simple and the arguments the other way are complicated. Protectionist tariffs on foreign imports would keep american jobs safe, right?
* Hundred-page appropriations bills that people don't have time to read and comprehend in their entirety. If you choose to offer summaries, the people writing the summaries will enjoy substantial power.
3. Athenian democracy let people directly vote on the issues, and produced fickle and often arbitrary results. For example, executing eight successful generals for not collecting survivors after a storm... then later changing their minds and executing the people who had accused the generals.
posted by Mike1024 at 12:59 PM on December 13, 2009
Consider that your position requires people to work at taking informed positions on very many subjects. Read a few bills and read up on the amendement process for bills. The complexity is way too high. People don't have time for or interest in the minutiae. How would you figure out what people wanted on an amendment suddenly put up there at 1 AM?
Note that what lawmakers do is draft and decide on paragraphs in laws. That's it.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:35 PM on December 13, 2009
Note that what lawmakers do is draft and decide on paragraphs in laws. That's it.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:35 PM on December 13, 2009
You might want to check out the Australian political party Senator On-Line
Senator On-Line (SOL) is a truly democratic party which will allow everyone on the Australian Electoral roll who has access to the internet to vote on every bill put to Parliament and have its Senators vote in accordance with a clear majority view.
posted by girlgenius at 2:02 PM on December 13, 2009
Senator On-Line (SOL) is a truly democratic party which will allow everyone on the Australian Electoral roll who has access to the internet to vote on every bill put to Parliament and have its Senators vote in accordance with a clear majority view.
posted by girlgenius at 2:02 PM on December 13, 2009
Consider for a second the role that marketing plays in our society. People believe what they do not because they arrived at their conclusions through a process of study and deliberation, but because of what they've seen, heard, and been told. I consider ballot initiatives to be anti-democratic precisely because they put their outcomes in the hands of marketers. As a representative, you can make the critical moral choice to ignore or obey lobbyists, but you can't count on your constituents' ability to critically appraise the propaganda they're absorbing.
Consider, also, that the one of the major reasons for having a constitution is to protect minorities from abuse by majorities. We've seen from proposition-8 that people will happily vote to crush the rights of the "other" given the opportunity. Imagine what America would be like if the Bill of Rights were open to amendment by a simple-minority ballot initiative....
*shivers*
posted by klanawa at 2:44 PM on December 13, 2009
Consider, also, that the one of the major reasons for having a constitution is to protect minorities from abuse by majorities. We've seen from proposition-8 that people will happily vote to crush the rights of the "other" given the opportunity. Imagine what America would be like if the Bill of Rights were open to amendment by a simple-minority ballot initiative....
*shivers*
posted by klanawa at 2:44 PM on December 13, 2009
I think you should spend more time reading about direct democracy, which works okay in very conservative places like Switzerland and Colorado, but usually runs off the rails in liberal places like California. A limited form called "recall" that merely lets the citizens rebuke the politicians once the politicians run off the rails works well under all political environments.
An extraordinarily promising new approach is deliberative democracy and deliberative opinion poll, which essentially look like jury trials where voters learn about all sides of an issue before voting. Juries are large to avoid issues with jury selection, but usually only a hundred people or so. See previous comment about replacing the executive branch veto with deliberative opinion poll.
You might also consider reading about ranked voting systems, like single transferable vote and condorcet methods.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:58 PM on December 13, 2009
An extraordinarily promising new approach is deliberative democracy and deliberative opinion poll, which essentially look like jury trials where voters learn about all sides of an issue before voting. Juries are large to avoid issues with jury selection, but usually only a hundred people or so. See previous comment about replacing the executive branch veto with deliberative opinion poll.
You might also consider reading about ranked voting systems, like single transferable vote and condorcet methods.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:58 PM on December 13, 2009
Especially in local politics, there are elected officials who succeed because they're really responsive to their constituents. But the ones who make this work still usually let their constituents come to them. Rather than "Hey guys, we're voting on X this Thursday! Everyone tell me what you think!" it's "Here's my phone number, call if you're having trouble with something in my district and I'll see what I can do."
Of course, there's a good-old-boy bribe-taking version of this that is Not So Good. But "Call if you need help" doesn't have to mean "Call if you have a backroom deal to set up." It can also just mean, "Hey, thanks for telling me about that vandalism problem you were having — I'll find out who to talk to in the police department about it" or whatever. Similarly, good local politicians will stay in touch with community groups and nonprofits and so on in their area, partly because it's good PR, but partly because those groups are often aware of problems that the politician might be able to solve.
At a state or a national level, politics is more about ideology. (Taxes Are Good vs. Taxes Are Bad, Down With The Queers vs. Yay Gay Marriage, etc. etc. etc.) But local politics, especially outside a large city, really is mostly about getting people's building permits and parking spaces sorted out, fiddling around with how the schools are staffed, that sort of thing.
It's basically debugging — and debugging goes better when you've got someone around who really listens to the users. But you can't round up all your users and poll them every time you're thinking of adding a feature. You just staff the help line as well as you can, and then make a point of paying attention to the complaints you get.
posted by nebulawindphone at 3:07 PM on December 13, 2009
Of course, there's a good-old-boy bribe-taking version of this that is Not So Good. But "Call if you need help" doesn't have to mean "Call if you have a backroom deal to set up." It can also just mean, "Hey, thanks for telling me about that vandalism problem you were having — I'll find out who to talk to in the police department about it" or whatever. Similarly, good local politicians will stay in touch with community groups and nonprofits and so on in their area, partly because it's good PR, but partly because those groups are often aware of problems that the politician might be able to solve.
At a state or a national level, politics is more about ideology. (Taxes Are Good vs. Taxes Are Bad, Down With The Queers vs. Yay Gay Marriage, etc. etc. etc.) But local politics, especially outside a large city, really is mostly about getting people's building permits and parking spaces sorted out, fiddling around with how the schools are staffed, that sort of thing.
It's basically debugging — and debugging goes better when you've got someone around who really listens to the users. But you can't round up all your users and poll them every time you're thinking of adding a feature. You just staff the help line as well as you can, and then make a point of paying attention to the complaints you get.
posted by nebulawindphone at 3:07 PM on December 13, 2009
You may want to read up on Rational Ignorance. People don't want to have to take the time to develop informed opinions on every issue. They want someone else, someone they trust, to make those decisions for them, so that they can spend their time and energy on things, such as making a living and raising their children, where their effort will have a bigger effect on their well-being.
posted by decathecting at 3:07 PM on December 13, 2009
posted by decathecting at 3:07 PM on December 13, 2009
There's scenarios where something similar has been used and worked, but not where the elected individual is expected to be the people's tribune on such a wide range of issues over an extended period as you get in Western representative democracies.
The example I'm thinking of is in the trade union movement, where in the past our local branch would send a delegate to the annual congress with a mandate to argue/vote for the views and policies we'd decided collectively at local branch level we wanted to see adopted nationally, even if during those arguments the person we delegated may have held the minority position. I'm sure you can see how that's different because it's an engaged constituency with a broadly shared purpose (though no shortage of real differences) and a one-off instance of delegation to a specific event.
But I imagine you could tailor a model of national politics that did something similar with less risk of the tyranny of the majority though it would obviously imply significant major changes to the whole system and doubtless a set of safe-guards like present constitutions (and usually where proposed mechanism for recalling or dismissing the delegate). The syndicalists came up with things along these lines.
posted by Abiezer at 4:20 PM on December 13, 2009
The example I'm thinking of is in the trade union movement, where in the past our local branch would send a delegate to the annual congress with a mandate to argue/vote for the views and policies we'd decided collectively at local branch level we wanted to see adopted nationally, even if during those arguments the person we delegated may have held the minority position. I'm sure you can see how that's different because it's an engaged constituency with a broadly shared purpose (though no shortage of real differences) and a one-off instance of delegation to a specific event.
But I imagine you could tailor a model of national politics that did something similar with less risk of the tyranny of the majority though it would obviously imply significant major changes to the whole system and doubtless a set of safe-guards like present constitutions (and usually where proposed mechanism for recalling or dismissing the delegate). The syndicalists came up with things along these lines.
posted by Abiezer at 4:20 PM on December 13, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by cmyr at 9:36 AM on December 13, 2009