No, a representative democracy cannot, by definition, become mob rule. If every single eligible voter exercised their right/privilege to vote, it still does not change the dynamic.
Senators and Congresscritters can vote their conscience, which may be 180 degrees out of sync with their constituents. It’s one of the fundamental reasons why we have a representative democracy. To protect us from ourselves.
Well…in this case, I suppose that 99% of the laws would have this “automatic death”. And during the next elections, the platforms would have to include a lot of technical stuff (all these laws not planned with a death date) a majority of people wouldn’t understand or wouldn’t care about.
Also, what body would control if the representant actually voted according to their promises (and in a lot of cases, it wouldn’t be absolutely obvious, except if they were extremely detailled) Would the supreme court have to interpret the platforms and decide what were the intents of the citizens? On what basis?
The major flaw with your system, erislover, is that it could (actually it would) lead to an impossibility to actually vote a law. For instance, let’s assume that there are only two kind of public expenses : military and education :
45% have promised they will be no new taxes but that military expenses will be reduced and education expenses augmented
32% have promised that education expenses will be augmented, that it will be founded by new taxes and that military expenses will stay the same
23% have promised that education expenses will stay the same, military expenses won’t be reduced and that the taxes will stay the same.
Everybody have promised that the deficit will stay the same.
Result : the deficit will stay the same : 100%
education expenses are augmented :77%
military expenses stay the same : 55%
no new taxes : 68%
In other words, it’s impossible to vote a budget. Though the promises of each representant make sense (each time they promised a new expense they said how it would be founded), they eventually have voted new military expenses and have forbidden to reduce other expenses, to augment the deficit or to augment taxes. All the budgets, whatever they could be, will be rejected.
Other example : the New-Nebrornia state law stating that the penalty for a murder is life sentence (voted during the former legislature) “die” this year. 33% of the representants have promised that the death sentence will be reintroduced for murder. 33% that the law will be voted again. 33% that the maximum sentence will be 30 years. The former law “die”…and there isn’t anymore any law punishing murderers, since any proposal will be rejected by 66% of the representants.
There would be tons of other contradictions. Some would be less important, some not obvious would appear only because two minor consequences of different laws would be conflicting, some combinations of laws would make no sense, etc…It would be a total mess. And there would be no room for negociations or to find a middle ground.
Of course, even if a law can actually be passed and make sense there would be other issues, due to circumstances : 68% of representants have promised there will be no more funding for hospitals. A devastating epidemy appears. People are dying by thousands. Yet, the representants don’t give any more funding for hospitals, since they have promised not to do so.
I choose extreme examples, but such problems would appear everywhere, with consequences ranging from annoying to totally catastrophic or utterly stupid. That’s why your proposal is absolutely impractical.
I’d say a ( if not the ) major reason for the lack of discipline is financial.
Politicians raise their own warchests ( read: don’t pass the money raised along to their pimp ). Since the last round of reform following the Watergate scandal we have placed the federal matching funds directly into the hands of the candidates as well. Pols can get re-elected without the support of their leadership.
They are powerful because if they withdraw from the coalition the government will collapse. That can’t happen here because we have a president as I believe you were alluding to earlier. Here all they could do is contribute to the gridlock.
erislover,
What definition of “mob rule” are you using, Tedster?
Just my 2sense
I just had an idea, tell me what you think. How about we combine a direct democracy with a representitive democracy?
We’ll start with the direct part. Once a month, or whenever, we hold direct votes on issues coming up for vote in your local, state or federal legislature. We could do it via internet, voting booths, mail in, or whatever else you can think of.
Then comes with the representitive part. Armed with this info, the rep knows how his/her constituents want them to vote. Now the rep can still vote either way and sometimes they’ll have to vote the other way, but if they ignore their constituents too often, they risk getting voted out of office.
The rep also will know how important an issue is by the voter turn out for an issue. If only 10% vote then people don’t really care. If 90% vote, they care a lot more.
clair, I withdrew my stress on forcing reps to vote how they ran; now I merely require that if they didn’t have a stand on an issue then the law must require its own timely death. They can change their mind however they want in the interests of changing events, new information, or political compromise. I merely request that they expressed an interest in such legislation.
I’m unsure how budgets would fit into this; this is more of an allocation of funds as opposed to, say, new gun control legislation.
2sense, wouldn’t non-legislative measures simply be best expressed in raising voter interest? Are you suggesting more lobbyist groups?
fugazi, I have no problem with that suggestion but it still requires that we have voter interest. Seeing as we have poor voter turnout on elections held at pretty distant time frames, I would expect even less interest in more frequent voting.
Did you ever read the constitution? It starts out with “We, the People” and goes on from there.
Whatever’s wrong with American government is our fault. If we really wanted politicians to state their opinions clealry, we’d vote against those who didn’t. If we honestly didn’t want career politicians, we wouldn’t vote for them. If we sincerely wanted government spending cut, the federal budget would be under five hundred dollars. The problem is we say we want these things in principle but tend to support the opposite things in practice. And in a democracy you get the government you voted for not the one you wished for.
I didn’t vote for a single person in office. Almost every single person I know can say the exact same thing.
How about, “In a Democracy that works you get the government you voted for…” I didn’t vote; why don’t I get no-government?
You didn’t vote but you’re asking why your vote didn’t count? Maybe you need to refresh yourself on the rules of the game.
If you decided not to vote you effectively said you had no interest in the outcome. If you later changed your mind, it’s nobody else’s fault. For that matter isn’t changing your mind on political issues after the election what you were arguing against?
I voted; always have. Sometimes the people I’ve voted for have won, sometimes they’ve lost. If I voted against someone and they’re a schmuck, I can legitimately complain about them. But I don’t feel my lost votes justify changing the system; I can’t think of a better way than majority democratic rule, so I’ll abide by the results even when I disagree with them.
Then maybe you need to rephrase your statements. My no-vote implies no government by your phrasing. You said, “And in a democracy you get the government you voted for…” I didn’t vote for any government; I didn’t get no-government.
Do you even know what you’re saying? I don’t like Bush. I don’t like Gore. I don’t support communism or socialism. I don’t like the Libertarian party as it stands. Who do you suppose I vote for, myself? If I vote that represents approval. I have no approval. What possible purpose would my vote serve to me? It is either useless (I don’t vote) or misused (gives approval where there was none).
I’m not arguing against democracy; why would you say I am? I am trying to find a way to find better results from the system we have. It would certainly encourage me to vote.
Wouldnt this be called a coalition goverment like they have in europe and in isreal?
From what ive seen of it they accomplish nothing and rarely last long and rarely get much accomplished other than tons of deal making and other related evils
erislover,
I maintain that voter apathy is due mainly to ignorance. If more of us understood what was at stake we would have more participation. Another way to gain participation would be simply to mandate it. Sign every citizen up at 18 and unless they are incarcerated require them to turn out at the polls or send in a absentee ballot. The penalty for violators need not be particularly harsh, say one hundred hours of community service. It would be necessary to put an “Abstain” option on the ballot to provide the right not to vote. I’m not sure how I feel about this option but it’s hard to argue it wouldn’t work.
As for the Weasel Brigade, I was thinking of an organization that tracks the fidelity of politicians to their campaign promises and whose members pledge to vote against ( or at least not vote for ) those that can’t keep their word.
Just my 2sense
2sense,
Actually, there are countries where vote is mandatory (and you’re fined if you don’t vote), like Belgium. However, I disagree with the concept. Someone can be personnaly opposed to the current political/constitutional system or even to the mere concept of voting. So, they must be free not to vote.
Casting an “abstain” vote (since your last presidential election, I wonder how exactly you vote, but basically here it means dropping an empty envelope in the ballot-box) is entirely different. It means “I don’t disagree with the system, I just can’t make my mind/none of the options are appealing for me”
Hmm, interesting b2sense** but I think I side with clair on it. But what you propose isn’t unworkable in some ways. 100 hours community service? Holy shit. I’d rather spend a week in jail. I had to do 40 hours of community service once and I thought it was death itself because I already worked over 40 hours a week. Maybe if I was independently wealthy… 
I still would like to have our representatives do more, however. Remember that resolution to have them be in congress more? I thought that was a terrible idea. I think they need to spend more time in the community, not more time in DC! (of course, I’m assuming your American here)
Perhaps there should be more polling done on hot topics by the reps’ offices…
The reason I’m not sure about mandatory participation is because I don’t understand the opposition to it. Why is it any different if a person doesn’t vote by not showing up or doesn’t vote by marking “No Vote” on a ballot? clairobscur makes a distinction between not voting due to opposition to the system itself and not voting due to indecision. I don’t know how to see the difference because they aren’t telling us with their votes.
Just my 2sense