What Should A Representative To Do ?
Once in a while we at TMV like to toss out an intellectual question to our readers and I thought I’d give it a shot. If nothing else it will give my less devoted readers a chance to poke a little fun at me.
The issue is one that has been around since the beginnings of representative democracy. When you send someone to Sacramento or Washington (or wherever) how should they decide which way to vote on bills ?
Should they follow the views of the voters or should they vote the way they think they should ?
While we have some advocates on either side of the debate, it seems to me that the best concept is a balance. We elect people to public office because we don’t have the time to review and decide on each issue (though some towns in New England still do this on as many issues as possible).
Because of this I would not expect my representative to sit down with every single subject and consider what the voters would want. Most issues do not require such review and doing so would waste a lot of time.
On the other hand when there is a topic where the voters of a state or district clearly feel very strongly, then I think a good legislator reflects their views even if it means going against his own inclinations.
Of course this is often attacked as pandering, but it seems to me that on certain issues there is nothing wrong with that. You elect someone to be your representative so they should reflect your views.
So what do you think ?
15 Responses to “What Should A Representative To Do ?”
There is one overriding point that most people either don't get or don't care about: elected representatives are in office to represent the interests of *EVERY* constituent in their district/state/etc, not just those who voted for them.
It is therefore incumbent (no pun intended) upon legislators to support or oppose policies which result in the least possible harm to the entirety of their populace.
Of course we don't want to be naive. It's not going to be politically viable to perform at this ideal at all times, but the principle is paramount.
Patrick’s question boils down to should we live in a democracy or a republic?
There can be little argument on this one. For the U.S. and other highly developed countries, a republic is the only form of civilized government.
Less developed societies should remain or revert to a monarchy until they are ready for the intricacies of political interaction.
In no circumstances should a democracy be allowed to exist. A more flawed form of government has yet to be proposed.
So, to answer the primary question, a representative should vote what he believes is best for the country and his district (in that order) even if it is diametrically opposed to the popular opinion of his voters.
jwest – I would argue that a dictatorship is worse than a democracy, although neither of them is particularly wonderful. Completely agree on the republic point, though.
Ryan,
Give me a dictator anytime over a mob.
Since the power is concentrated in a dictator, he (or she) is much easier to reason with, convince, persuade or, if needed, take down. Dictators tend to move in predictable patterns with an eye towards self preservation and adulation.
Mobs (democracies), can move in totally unpredictable ways and without any obvious logic. People are never crueler than when they are part of group and atrocities are so much easier when they have been legitimized by a majority vote.
Democracies favor charisma over character. Rhetoric over logic. Fair over right.
It’s certainly no way for thinking people to live.
Would you rather live in North Korea or California?
In political science terms, the question asks if we want a trustee – who holds the trust of their district and votes in what he/she believes is their best interest – or merely a representative – who simply turns the will of the people into a vote. I would argue that the sheer number of votes makes the latter impossible. To do so would mean an ongoing daily polling of thousands of constituents on dozens of pending bills.
The problem with a trustee system, as we have, is that the person holding the voting rights in the legislature has to be trusted. When ideological differences occur, then it will be impossible to please everyone – a conservative sees a tax cut as being in the best interest while a liberal sees a tax hike as being necessary.
My pet peeve is people who run around talking about the difference between a republic and a democracy without knowing what they are talking about. Democracy is derived from Greek and means “ruled by the people.” Republic is derived from French and means “the public's wealth.” A republic is any government that is owned by its people – which includes the USA, but also the former East German Republic, the USSR, and China. However, Germany, USSR, and China would have a hard time claiming to be actual democracies, because a democracy is a government whose policies are determined by the people governed.
I expect a lot of snarky comments about how the US doesn't have policies determined by the people. Well, technically, if you vote, you have input. If you vote and your guy lost, you still have input. You just have to get out and organize. It's called “pluralism.” If an interest is strong enough, you'll convince enough people to get the policy enacted.
Good question.
Since California hasn’t totally devolved into a democracy, I would have to pick it if we’re being honest.
However, because my confidence in myself is unbounded, I’m sure that in North Korea I would not only be in the ruling class, but in a position to execute the options I mentioned before, namely reason, persuasion or elimination.
Here is an argument I love to make:
If Bill Gates really wanted to do something to help mankind, he should hire Blackwater mercenaries, forcibly take over a sub-Saharan African country and install himself as King. Warren Buffet should do likewise as should Richard Branson and a dozen other multi-billionaires.
They should rule with an iron fist, but follow the principles set forth in the Magna Carta. For the next 100 years, they and their heirs should engage in an ego-fueled competition for the most grand and advanced Kingdom.
This is how the world worked for thousands of years until just recently. It’s obvious that the world wasn’t ready for the change, so it’s time for some to go back to what works.
I think my Sarcasm Meter just blew out…
“Democracies favor charisma over character. Rhetoric over logic. Fair over right.”
This has been systematically exploited by government, particularly by Democrats, since the 1930s.
“In political science terms, the question asks if we want a trustee – who holds the trust of their district and votes in what he/she believes is their best interest – or merely a representative – who simply turns the will of the people into a vote.”
Trustee or agent, these two words and concepts actually come close in practice, though the second is more broad or “loose.”
“If Bill Gates really wanted to do something to help mankind, he should hire Blackwater mercenaries, forcibly take over a sub-Saharan African country and install himself as King….” [a feudal system with modern technology]
Actually, given the poor culture there (leading to actual _decline_ while the rest of the world advances from great to pitiful amounts), sub-Saharan Africa really would do well to fall into some kind of Western or OECD receivership and oversight. Colonization would actually improve things, not make them worse.
“support or oppose policies which result in the least possible harm to the entirety of their populace.”
Which? If to support, I'll note in passing that's a rationale for progressive income (and wealth) taxation.
For centuries, the wealthy and powerful have used their position to protect and provide for those who are better off under the dominion of another.
In countries where chaos and corruption run rampant, representative democracy is simply unviable. A dictatorship, which normally falls to the military to fill, is generally prone to bribery and self dealing because the leader is using the resources of the country to enrich himself and his supporters.
An ego-based monarchy, especially one that is in competition with other ego-based monarchies, solves the motivational problems while providing the structural framework necessary to turn basket-case areas into functioning societies. Two generations of western-based education and values would transform needed countries forever.
No other application of resources and talent can make the same difference for the better in the same amount of time.
“For centuries, the wealthy and powerful have used their position to protect and provide for those who are better off under the dominion of another.”
Just look at the pre-modern distribution of wives and slaves. Many none, many others one, a few many.
“structural framework necessary to turn basket-case areas into functioning societies”
Or at least to raise armies with which to engage in forceful “competition” that you write of.