How is a representative democracy supposed to work?

[Stoneburg]

I’m a huge supporter of democracy. Still, I prefer the representative model over the direct although a direct democracy is obviously more democratic. So it seems I think democracy is only good up to a point. That “more democratic” is not always good.

Here’s why: People are ignorant.

I don’t mean that in a bad way. I’m ignorant too. There’s way more stuff I don’t know anything about than there is stuff that I know something about. It so happens that I know a lot more than the average person about some things because I find them interesting. Most people don’t find national economy to be interesting, or enviromental issues, or the socio-economic results of certain programs, or city planning, or health care to be interesting. So they’re ignorant on these issues. So I don’t want them to decide. But I also don’t want any other system of goverment than a democracy, because a) That usually ends up bad, and b) I don’t get to have a say!

So here’s an idea:
Instead of voting on the issue, we vote on who gets to vote on the issue. That way we can pick someone who we think is smart and capable. And anyone can be a candidate. That way I don’t only get a say, I can even be a candidate if I think there’s nobody smarter, or if I have a really good idea on how to make things better. Or if I just want to help out.

Since there’s such a wide array of issues you need to vote on, you can’t expect expertise knowledge from politicians. So the best thing would be if these politicians sought out the best advice from the smartest experts on all these various areas, and then implemented them.

So far this seems like an amazing idea. But there are some flaws to it.
How the hell are you going to know who’s the smartest and most capable? You’ll be voting for the one who is best at convincing you he’s smart and capable, not neccesarily the same thing. This system would seem to actually favor charisma and social skills rather than intelligence, curiosity or good judgement. You end up getting the most popular rather than the most competent. Of course, being popular is in a way also important, and knowing how to become popular is a competence in itself. Worst case scenario you’d get someone who is a very good con artist and only out to serve himself.

Also… the experts have the ear of the politician. But who decides which expert, or what constitutes an expert? What if someone can make a LOT of money off a political decision swinging one way. Wouldn’t it make perfect sense for them to try and get people that the politician trusts to change his opinion. They could go so far that they manufacture evidence, or create financial incitaments for experts to lie. Or just hire “experts” or professionals to lobby for their interest.

I mean super-super worst case scenario would be that you’d get a bunch of liars and cheats being indirectly bribed by special interest groups making the decisions for the whole country.

So, any ideas on how to combat this hypothetical without switching to a non-democractic process?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Truth be told, I figure the exact process by which legislation is formed doesn’t matter as much as an independent court system bound by constitutional rules who will take seriously the matter of adjudicating the legislation and hearing arguments that challenge it.

[Whack-a-Mole]

“Direct Democracy” is less a hypothetical and more a reality than you might think.

California has been practicing it for awhile and lately it has caused them all sorts of problems.

Here is an excellent article (lengthy…note the “In this special report” sidebar for more of the article) in the last Economist magazine. It describes California’s problems with this form of government and some possible solutions. They note it can work and has worked some places. Worth a read if you are interested in this stuff.

[TreacherousCretin]

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

(H.L. Mencken)

[athelas]

You make a lot of good points. Some of these concepts have been studied in political science and should be taken into account by anyone who is seriously interested in politics. In particular:

Also… the experts have the ear of the politician. But who decides which expert, or what constitutes an expert? What if someone can make a LOT of money off a political decision swinging one way. Wouldn’t it make perfect sense for them to try and get people that the politician trusts to change his opinion. They could go so far that they manufacture evidence, or create financial incitaments for experts to lie. Or just hire “experts” or professionals to lobby for their interest.

I mean super-super worst case scenario would be that you’d get a bunch of liars and cheats being indirectly bribed by special interest groups making the decisions for the whole country.

has a lot in common with the principal-agent problem, where one person, with his own self-interests (the politician) is making decisions on behalf of someone with skin in the game but no managerial control (the voter). If there’s a way for politicians to make their life easier, whether through kickbacks or through not thinking too hard about which experts actually make sense, they’ll do it, even though it’s not beneficial for society.

Also important is the ideal of rational ignorance (people individually have minimal political power, so it simply doesn’t make sense for them to spend time deeply studying political issues). If this means that people just held random opinions, that wouldn’t be too bad, since at the ballot box these errors would mostly cancel each other out. But as it turns out, people are systematically biased, since politics can be a way to show your good moral character (“Kill 'em nasty furriners” and “give more money to the Foundation for Cute Kittens with Rare Diseases!”) and affiliation with your tribe (“enlightened folks” vs. “real Americans”). So people take opinions that make themselves look good - which predictably leads to bad policies.

I have a simple model of how some people — but by no means all — process political issues. Occasionally the real force behind a political ideology is the subconsciously held desire that a certain group of people should not be allowed to rise in relative status.

Take the so-called “right wing.” I believe that some people on the right do not like those they perceive as “whiners.” They do not want these whiners to rise in relative status. That means they must argue against the whining and also they must argue against the presuppositions behind the whining…

Take the so-called “left wing.” Some of these people favor a kind of meritocracy. They feel it is unfair that money so determines access in capitalist society and they do not want the monied class to rise in relative status, certainly not above the status of the smart people and the virtuous people. It is important to fight for the principle that the desires of this monied class have a relatively low priority in the social ranking. Egalitarianism is the rhetoric of the day, and readjusting the status of other Americans to the status of this monied class often receives more attention than elevating the very poorest in the world…

For the people caught up in these intellectual traps, it all boils down to which groups of whiners they find most objectionable. And once they choose sides, the wisdom of that choice becomes increasingly clear with time.

[Martin_Hyde]

I think a lot of your premises are false.

We don’t have representative democracy because the people are too stupid and representatives are supposed to be smart. We have representative democracy because even in a country of 2.5-3million as was the original United States that is still just far too many people to involve in day-to-day decision making.

Endless referendum are just too time consuming and too costly to work for every single issue. A referendum system can work on a large scale, but not for all legislation. California’s referendum system is arguably a plague on the State, but the reason it functions at all is it is only used for a small number of issues. The State legislature will pass hundreds of bills a session.

Since it is entirely too difficult to utilize direct democracy for day to day decision making, that is one major reason we have a representative democracy.

The masses are also fickle, their opinions change dramatically. By having a legislative process in which politicians have to engage in careful compromise and debate, it tends to give battles over political issues some measure of finality. How would you work out a compromise on something like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or Obamacare with 150 million individuals? You couldn’t. Additionally, those people might have a different opinion the very next day, such reversals are heavily disruptive to society. With elected representatives they have a vested interest in typically not trying to immediately overturn legislation they have just passed. Because of the short-term static nature, even the opposition won’t immediately try to overturn legislation they dislike.

If Republicans have a majority in both houses and pass legislation the Democrats loathe, the Democrats in Congress aren’t going to waste time trying to reverse it during that Congress. Until an election changes the balance of power there is no point to reopen that issue. Whereas the opinions of the people can change over night, the composition of the legislature can only change at set intervals.

Further, representatives have never been and were never intended to be sage geniuses who could expertly decide the right course on every issue. For one, some issues come down to a genuine matter of opinion. There isn’t a right and wrong answer on lots of things, just “what do we as a society want?” for those issues it is more important that you vote for someone who represents your interests than you vote for someone who is an “expert.” Even back in 1789, the issues facing Congress were far too broad for anyone to be an expert on them all. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were great experts in the realm of law and its relationship to society, but were either particularly skillful or adept in the field of economics? Military strategy? How about maritime matters?

On most matters that are extremely politically sensitive, you cannot go to a panel of unbiased experts and get a right or wrong answer. Are higher taxes good or bad? While the SDMB will argue that is “settled economics” and that maximum taxes = wonderful, the truth is the field of economics has settled on no such determination.

Is being involved in Afghanistan right or wrong? Who do you consult on that one? Foreign policy “experts”? “Military experts?” What if they both say different things? The truth of the matter is if you look at the last ten years learned men in foreign policy and military strategy have all said conflicting things about the wisdom of being involved in Afghanistan, just as they said conflicting things about the wisdom of being involved in Iraq. For better or worse, those are matters of opinion.

[Farmer_Jane]

Well, actually, we have a democratic republic because we kind of think most people are too stupid. This was a country founded on intellectualism…and egos. Just look at how we vote for the POTUS.

They that are discontented under monarchy, call it tyranny; and they that are displeased with aristocracy, call it oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a democracy, call it anarchy, which signifies the want of government; and yet I think no man believes, that want of government, is any new kind of government.

-Hobbes

[Farmer_Jane]

@Martin_Hyde

I think a lot of your premises are false.

We don’t have representative democracy because the people are too stupid and representatives are supposed to be smart. We have representative democracy because even in a country of 2.5-3million as was the original United States that is still just far too many people to involve in day-to-day decision making.

How many of those 2.5 were eligible to vote? But honestly, direct democracy is everywhere in the states. It’s one of the first things kids are taught. Majority rules.

Except. The “founders” of the US did not advocate direct democracy. Tyranny of the majority. Votes on a whim. Too close to a state of nature. One faction could make stupid decisions for everyone.

I don’t like citizens proposing bills. That’s when stupid shit gets passed, like “personhood” for a fetus or “banning gays from public school teaching jobs” or “Tabor amendment” (Colorado) or “recalls in California” or some such.

Sometimes I wish we had more of a consensus system. I think it would break up our political parties and give voters more control. sigh Political parties.

[2sense]

I don’t think the OP has pointed out a flaw of representative democracy. All governments are self-serving and serve the interest of the elite over the general populace as much as they can get away with. The upside of representative democracy is that they can’t get away with as much because we can vote the bums out and don’t have to take to the streets like they are in the various Arab nations.

[Martin_Hyde]

@CitizenPained

How many of those 2.5 were eligible to vote? But honestly, direct democracy is everywhere in the states. It’s one of the first things kids are taught. Majority rules.

Except. The “founders” of the US did not advocate direct democracy. Tyranny of the majority. Votes on a whim. Too close to a state of nature. One faction could make stupid decisions for everyone.

I don’t like citizens proposing bills. That’s when stupid shit gets passed, like “personhood” for a fetus or “banning gays from public school teaching jobs” or “Tabor amendment” (Colorado) or “recalls in California” or some such.

Sometimes I wish we had more of a consensus system. I think it would break up our political parties and give voters more control. sigh Political parties.

This vague and wandering post makes little sense.

You need to write in a clearer manner.

You say:

How many of those 2.5 were eligible to vote? But honestly, direct democracy is everywhere in the states. It’s one of the first things kids are taught. Majority rules.

Direct Democracy means that the electorate actually gets to vote on decisions. Majority rule may or may not be equivalent to direct democracy. The Federal legislature and all fifty state legislatures are majority rule for the passage of laws, but that isn’t the same as direct democracy.

Many states allow referendums/ballot initiatives, however even in states where I feel that has run amok I don’t think you could argue those states are examples of “direct democracies” as opposed to republics. A true direct democracy you have all the voters get together (you could do this in a virtualized sense in the 21st century) periodically and decide on everything. Even in California or other referendum heavy states in terms of sheer amount of legislative work the referendums are an extremely small portion of governing.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Martin_Hyde

This vague and wandering post makes little sense.

You need to write in a clearer manner.

You say:

Direct Democracy means that the electorate actually gets to vote on decisions. Majority rule may or may not be equivalent to direct democracy. The Federal legislature and all fifty state legislatures are majority rule for the passage of laws, but that isn’t the same as direct democracy.

Many states allow referendums/ballot initiatives, however even in states where I feel that has run amok I don’t think you could argue those states are examples of “direct democracies” as opposed to republics. A true direct democracy you have all the voters get together (you could do this in a virtualized sense in the 21st century) periodically and decide on everything. Even in California or other referendum heavy states in terms of sheer amount of legislative work the referendums are an extremely small portion of governing.

I’m not sure what your purpose is. The founders rejected direct democracy. So do I - unless you’re having a small vote about what to eat for dinner or some such.

I know what a direct democracy is.