Um… I think you’re still not quite getting the notion.
The “Citizen Legislator” notion is what Thomas Jefferson had in mind: common farmers, and ordinary shopkeepers, and laborers (well, maybe not laborers) getting elected to Congress, to represent “everyman.”
It isn’t a foolish ideal. However, in practice, it doesn’t work as well as an “elite” legislature, with people who have more education than the average guy.
You wouldn’t want a guy with a high-school equivalence degree doing your open-heart surgery, would you? Well…
Having a “professional” legislature, mostly filled with career politicians, only means that we, the people, have to take extra care in how we vote. We have to examine their values, their agenda, their ability, their flexibility, etc.
We can’t simply rely on “Jim, the Blacksmith” to “do what’s right.” In large part, that’s because his naive idea of “what’s right” might be exactly the opposite of what “Joe, the Plumber” (I just threw up a little in my mouth) thinks is right.
I agree with those that feel that a political “class”, so to speak, is a natural consequence of our social organization. I am interested in my fellow man’s opinion but there’s a limit to how much effect I want that opinion to have. Without a doubt others feel that way about me.
LOL. Thomas Jefferson? Blacksmiths? Plumbers? Either you missed the last 200 years or you live in some Hollywood post-apocalypse fantasy.
Even if you don’t have direct experience you must have heard of universities, you must be aware of universal suffrage, of the growth of the middle class professions, of Women’s Rights, of vastly increased property ownership, significantly increased longevity?
I just mentioned (above) how, for the majority of political leaders, politics is a second career: Life experience, real world experience, existing and permanent roots in their communities. That is overwhelmingly the majority experience around the world.
Having said that I do recall George Bush managed to visit Mexico once before being elected. Maybe this is part of that ‘US exceptionalism’ people here talk about.
Um…rather than being rude, why don’t you try explaining what you mean?
Thomas Jefferson believed in “ordinary people” becoming Representatives. He was the guy who believed that; I don’t. You’re calling me rude names on the basis of his errors, not mine.
Yes, of course I know about universities. I attended one successfully for several years.
Have you heard of BBS forum discussion groups? In your experience, you must have heard of rational debate and logical discourse…
Jefferson’s idea of what an “ordinary person” is not what you seem to think it is. He didn’t mean cooks, hog-sloppers, grooms, farmhands, teamsters and brewers’s assistants. He meant people like him, land-owning, educated, white men with means.
Okay; I’ll accept this… (Thank you for explaining it politely! Heck, thank you for explaining it clearly!)
What would his ideas have been regarding the middle-ground: skilled professionals and educated men, but who weren’t of means? A shipwright, for instance, but who lived in a rented room?
4 and 6a are the only ones that aren’t subversions of the democratic process, although 8, 8a, and 9a aren’t that bad. For 8 and 8a, the person could have changed their will if they didn’t want to support the political campaign, and precreated districts will at least have the possibility of the opposite bias offsetting the problem in the next election.
Districts are only needed if you have more than two candidates. See this video for how you make districts work in a proportional system.
you guys seriously think there is no democratic ideal? Really? Of course there is: the ideal is that every person has equal say. The ideal is that everyone is educated on the issues and makes a rational decision. If you have no ideal, you have no concept.
And, yes, career politicians are a problem, but it’s not one that’s going to go away, so instead you have to set up systems to get around the problem. The first is to make sure you have multiple party support. The second is to keep all political bodies proportional. The third–the one about preventing people from running for office instead of doing their job, is one I’m not sure how to deal with, although spontaneous elections might help.
And, yes, none of this is available in our country, which is why the system has reached the point that it is becoming more rather than less corrupt. As the number of moral people declines, corruption is going to become a bigger and bigger problem.
Let’s simplify the problem. Let’s ignore the complicating factors of a large population, corruption, financial influence, and so on. Let’s say, instead, that you wish to be an educated voter and have come to me for advice. I am a friend and true neutral party, and genuinely wish to convey the right information to make you a truly empowered voter as close to the democratic ideal as possible.
The first thing to note is that almost no matter what I say, I will influence your vote. So in some sense I have already strayed from a kind of ideal–one in which every voter is free from external influences. But let’s suppose that this is too esoteric an ideal, and that we go with your claim that educated, rational voters are the ideal.
Now, how to I go about educating you properly? I have finite time and you have finite patience. Do I give equal time to covering all the candidates? Or do I only spend time on the likely winners? What about those candidates that are, for lack of a better word, nuts? Of course, that’s just like my opinion, man. There’s someone out there that thinks the nuts are completely reasonable. Maybe you’re one of them. Am I wrong to spend less time on them?
We might also consider the issues. How do I prioritize the time I spend describing them, and how do I phrase the basic assumptions behind them? I consider global warming a fact in the same way I consider the round earth a fact. Is it fair of me to describe alternative viewpoints as irrational and contrary to evidence?
So even in the simplest possible case, I don’t know how to even approach some kind of democratic ideal. The best I can do–and what I do do, in practice–is to qualify as much as possible with caveats. But even then I won’t pretend that I’m not trying to win people over to my side, even though that’s not even my goal. It’s just a side effect based on the fact that I have reasons for holding certain viewpoints.
Expand the problem to hundreds of millions of people and an incredible variety of influencing factors, and it’s clear that an ideal can never exist.
In all examples except for 8, the outcome has been subverted in some manner. Sometimes directly, sometimes not. Certain things are easily fixed though. I’ve long advocated for a “voting week” rather than a single day to ensure the number of voters who turn up is maximized. I’ve also advocated that we ought to have mandatory voting with an option to “select none” or “abstain” as an option. Things like redistricting and new ID laws should have to be put into effect no later than 6 months before a major election. What is more, the city/state should have to demonstrate to the federal govt. or an outside commission that they are providing adequate resources at all times to service all the affected members of the community.
In mild contradiction to what others have said, yes, I actually do hold to a democratic ideal. Alas, it’s cynical, and involves careful limitations to preserve us from pure abstract “Perfect Democracy.”
The mere intermediary of representation goes a long way. In the ideal, most of us will recognize that we’re not competent to legislate, and will voluntarily choose someone with more education to speak for us in the assembly.
As I know myself to be incompetent to serve in Congress, so I know most of my neighbors to be incompetent also.
In some ways, yes, I want Congress to resemble the nation. There should be a fair sample of blacks, Jews, Latinos, women, men, gays, etc. But in other ways, no, I don’t want Congress to resemble the nation, and education level is the primary difference!
Oops. I agree with the first sentence…and vigorously disagree with the second. I think that a multi-party system would simply bring about an entirely new set of ugly problems. I honestly believe that we would be worse off under such a system; you’d be solving ten old problems…and introducing fifteen new ones!
But, yes, definitely, safeguards are vital, and citizen diligence (in my opinion) is the most important safeguard of all.
What happens when a ‘career politician’ fails to be re-elected, does he then become a ‘public servant’ in some capacity before reverting to a ‘career politician’ again when he’s elected again?
I’m not really following where you’re going here. For certain, I’m sure Bush didn’t understand government and laws any less than the average American, but he certainly wasn’t a trained legal expert, either.