Is representative government in the US just a myth?

Great Debates
1

In my recent pit thread blaming Utah for Orrin Hatch’s behavior, a poster objected that the whole exercise was not sound in this post:

I responded with this

but got no response. That’s ok because the objection raised what I think is a great debate topic: If we can’t blame a region of the US for its representatives, then who can we blame?

I can understand not blaming a population for gaffes and personal-life misdeeds of a representative. Nobody votes for somebody to get involved in a sex scandal for instance- this kind of thing is clearly the fault of the individual.

But when it comes to their professional behavior as representatives, it seems to me that if a region can’t be blamed for that, we can’t say the region is represented by that person at all.

So which is it? Where is the line? Are populations to blame for the professional behavior of their representatives, or is the notion of representation just a fairy tale in which we’ve all been engaging?

2

I dunno, the idea of “geographic responsibility” is kinda weird. After all, even Orrin Hatch had some third of the electorate votes against him. Seems weird to hold them “responsible” Hatch.

But yea, to the extent that “Utah” is a euphemism for the majority of Utah’s eligible voters, then I’d say they’re responsible for whom they vote for.

3

so what are you trying to get at here? Are the Blue states “geographically responsible” for what Obama, Holder et al are doing to the country right now?

Representative government is indeed a dubious notion nowadays because the country seems to be run mostly by unelected bureaucrats of the executive branch and not by the “representatives”. But what does that have to do with a state voters’ “responsibility”?

4

A good case for Primaries being more important than the General Election.

I will always vote Democratic because there will never be a case where a Republican candidate’s view is closer to my own. So the real decision comes when I vote for who the Democratic candidate will be.

5

Trying to defend it against the insanity and immaturity of the Republican/Tea Party agenda? I certainly hope the Blue states can take credit for that. Might make a lot more on-the-fencers see the light about just what the Republicans stand for.

6

Come on, that’s every modern government all the time, national and local. That’s how it’s supposed to be. The elected officials are there to provide oversight and leadership, but the “permanent government” still has all the experience in doing what it does day to day.

7

Hatch (and every other elected official) didn’t just walk into his office - he was elected. The people of Utah had a choice and the majority felt that Hatch best represented what they wanted. Assuming Orrin Hatch isn’t representative of what Utah voters want is to assume that Pete Ashdown, Scott Howell, Pat Shea, Brian Moss, Ted Wilson, and Frank Moss were all even less representative than Hatch - and I don’t think the Democrats would have made that many false calls in a row.

8

Your country (and indeed, any country) would be FUCKED WITH A RHINO’S DICK if you let elected officials run the country unfettered by a consistent bureaucracy (and judiciary, for that matter). Without that consistency, you’re always one election cycle away from chaos or dictatorship, or a mix of both, and all it would take is one significantly traumatic event before an election to set it off.

9

The representative part works just fine, it’s just picky about who it represents.

If you as John Q. Citizen decide you’d like to call up your elected official and sit down with him for a chat, you will probably find his busy schedule doesn’t permit him to make any time for you.

If you as John Q. Citizen, CEO of a multi-million dollar company in the elected official’s area decide to call up for a chat… what time works best for you, sir?

10

It may be side issue - or it may not - that in classical liberal political theory the representative in a representative democracy does not represent (a) the people who voted for him, or (b) the people living in the district in which he is elected (assuming electorates are determined geographically) but © the people as a whole. So you may be the representative from such-and-such a district, but you are not the representative of such-and-such a district; you represent the nation. And this is reflected in, e.g. the oath taken by US senators , which is all about the Constitution and the United States, and nothing about any particular State.

Of course, the realities of electoral politics may tend to muddy these waters a bit, as may federalist political theories. Nevertheless the voters of (in this case) Utah are not electing senator whose duty it is to advance the interests of Utah, or the views of a majority of Utahans, but to serve the common good of the nation as a whole. Their civic duty is to choose someone who will do that well.

Can we criticise them if they choose someone who, in fact, does not do that well? Yes, we can, but I think we have to recognise that they actually have a very limited choice. The US suffers from having been an early adapter of electoral democracy; its party and electoral system offers voters a very limited degree of choice, compared to later and more thoughtfully-designed systems. And even the electoral systems which give the voters a very high degree of choice necessarily require voters to aggregate lots of factors into just one decision. You have to consider each candidate’s position on the entire range of policies that concern you, plus your judgment about the candidat’s character, experience, skills, judgment, etc. And you can only pass one electoral judgment on each candidate.

I usually find myself holding my nose, regardless of which candidate/party I vote for. That doesn’t mean my choice is beyond criticism, but if you find that I have voted for a candidate whose actions, in the event, you don’t like, you might be better working for the kind of structural change which would give voters more power to choose the kind of candidates that you would prefer.

11

You’re talking virtual representation. I don’t think this was ever portrayed as a goal that a political system should institute. It was usually offered as a rationalization for an existing political system that wasn’t as representative as it claimed to be.

The main example was the British Parliament before its reforms. Representation in Parliament had originally been set up along relatively proportionate lines. But as the centuries passed, people moved around. Some towns which had MP’s shrank down to small villages while other places grew into large cities but had no MP’s.

British reformers who were trying to end this system used the American Congress as an example of how they felt the system should be set up - representation should be based on population and periodically adjusted to reflect population changes.

12

I would say, yes. In a world with a 24-hour news cycle and a two-party system, unless someone thoroughly agrees with a given party’s ticket which, IME, most people don’t, they feel forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Thus, knowing that in the vast majority of cases either a Republican or Democrat will win, then if both candidates are repugnant; how can one really blamer the voters?

The thing is, geographical representation used to make a lot of sense. In a time when we were far less connected, my neighbors and I shared a lot of the same issues because we were both farmers or both urban factory workers or whatever. Today, people vote for federal offices primarily based on issues that have nothing to do with geography, things like foreign policy, taxes/spending, gay marriage, abortion, guns… whatever. So, while our system made sense when it was written and for quite a while thereafter, it’s simply not working anymore.

This is why I’d prefer a non-geographically based representation system, or at least only partially based. Obviously, this is a rough idea, but just run with the basic concept. Consider a scenario where the representatives in congress selected nationally, and their votes on bills in congress were weighted by how many people approved of them, with certain minimum and maximum weights to limit power and triviality. If I am choosing from amongst a large list of people, where it’s not an all-or-nothing bet, I’m no longer forced to choose the lesser of two evils, but can place my vote on the one I most agree with.

The primary advantage of that sort of system is that a candidate wouldn’t just be trying to do whatever will get him re-elected, but he will really need to focus on doing what the most people want because he will gain or lose power proportionately to how many people approve of his record.

And, of course, it would hopefully remove any geographically specific issues from being national issues and put them only on those who are affected by them locally, typically a state or lower level. As, obviously, anyone representing people nationally would alienate a lot of potential voters, and thus hurting his power and his ability to help those who vote for him, by putting too much effort assisting a specific geographical area over another.

Anyway, I digressed a bit there, but I more or less agree with the OP.

13
14

Some posts in this thread argue that the Congressmen do not legislate the way people want them too, and that this is a problem.

I would argue that the opposite is as likely, and often more of a problem. I don’t think a random sample of American voters knows what’s best for the country. Better is the old-fashioned concept of representative democracy: we elect people whose wisdom and integrity we respect, hoping they know what’s best even when voters do not.

(Admittedly, some recent Congressmen may make us doubt in their wisdom and integrity, but that’s the point. The worst of today’s Congressmen were often elected because they agreed with voters, not in spite of it.)

15

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my state senator. We were talking about the Initiative–my state does not have it. I was suggesting that the legislature grant this power to the people, and he first said that this is not how representative democracy works. (And I agree, on a national level, but the more local it gets, the more having Initiative makes sense) But where I had a problem was when he said that the people cannot be trusted to make good decisions.

I then pointed out reading in the newspaper how he had praised us for our good judgment in electing him the day after the election…

there was a long, pregnant pause on the telephone before he changed the subject.:dubious:

At any rate, with my view that big business has our national government bought and paid for as a given, the raw will of a gang of idiots seems a bit better deal than the agenda of the wicked, but that’s just my opinion.

16

And exactly how do we determine whether we respect someone’s wisdom, except by whether it agrees with our own wisdom? How does that not mean we go with the person who is the best at manipulation?

The skills required to convince people you are wise and respectable are not the same as actually being wise and acceptable. Your idea of representative democracy would be like putting Hollywood in charge.

17

I second this, but would point out Septimus is still right in the case of a small voting district where the candidate is personally known as wise but not saying so himself, So, only if the people clamor for him out of personal knowledge. Except in that case, BigT, I think you are largely correct, it is a lot like hollywood.

But then I think of Ron Paul.

18

Our state and local governments are far more vulnerable to becoming beholden to business interests – when it comes to county and municipal governments, there often is no line at all between business and government officials.

19

I forgot to make a key point before pressing Submit Reply.

In earlier times, politicians might be known to us (or our friends) personally, while the details of legislation would not be. These days it’s the opposite. Voter (mis)conceptions of issues (whether through manipulation or not) has been exacerbated by TV news, etc.

I probably “sound like a broken record” continually blaming media for the political problems of today’s America, especially since I have no solution to offer. But the point is worth stressing (though I’m not articulate enough to make a proper case).

And, although I detest FoxNews, I’m not saying media bias is the problem. Sincere opinionated news would almost be better than sensationist tell-people-what-they-want-to-hear news. But I write “almost better” because unfortunately opinionated news would just be the opinion of the highest bidder in today’s America.

20

Yes, you’re correct, no one can do a better job at feeling sorry for themselves and having delusions of persecution than wealthy white guys like George Carlin.

There’s a reason why so white communists never made much headway among American minorities who actually knew what oppression was like as opposed to spoiled rich white kids who like to play at being armchair revolutionaries.