gregerson.org

"On most major issues we've dealt with in the past 50 years, the public was more likely to be right -based on the judgment of history- than the legislatures or Congress."

--George Gallup, Sr.

"The only cure for the ills of Democracy is more Democracy."

--Jane Addams

"Democracy is the WORST form of government, except for ALL the others."

--Winston Churchill

Introduction

This essay does not argue the merits of democracy, but assumes citizens are sovereign, democracy is a legitimate form of government, and the popular vote is best way to choose government officials. This essays asks "how should elected officials govern? What should guide their decisions and actions while in office?".

The conventional view if that they should govern however they think best. This represents the wishes of constituents because they would be expected to elect someone who has views similar to theirs.

There are obvious flaws with this model. There may not be any candidates running for office who share your view on one or more make-or-break issues (e.g. abortion, the death penalty, or war). My objection to this system is that I want my fellow citizen's views to count equally to my own; I don't want my view to prevail, but the view of the majority to prevail. I could not vote for a candidate who was not going to govern according to the views of the majority of constituents.

Right and Wrong

What is the right way to govern? Is it what is morally right? Or what is the most practical, doing the greatest good for the most people?

Quarantining AIDS patients might be the right thing to do from a practical point of view. Forcing overweight people to diet and exercise might also do good. But these policies would also be considered wrong my many people, regardless of how effective or practical they are.

What is the most moral is subjective, and will almost always be in dispute. What is the most practical and does the greatest good can often be known with reasonable certainty, but never for sure except in hindsight. Is there a way for an elected official to do anything and know it is, in fact, "right"?

This question is similar to asking how to make a life or death medical decision. When the outcome of different medical options is unknown, the "right" decision is determined by informing the patient about their options and letting them decide, since they are the one facing the consequences, not the doctor.

If medical decisions where made according to the way we govern, you would be free to choose any doctor, but then have to submit to whatever decisions they made about how to treat you.

If we governed ourselves the way we make medical decisions, we would choose our officials and they would then govern according to the wishes of the majority of constituents.

I believe that that basic fairness dictates that those who are most affected by a decision, who will either suffer or benefit, and who are also paying the costs involved, should get to decide. What is right or wrong for the public can only be decided by the public itself, not by one individual who happened to win a popular vote.

In the US, citizens have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This is seen as desirable, because at worst it's inconvenient but at best can draw attention to real injustices. When the average constituent lobbies or petitions their elected officials, it's called participatory democracy.

Elected officials cannot arrest anyone for petitioning them, but they don't have to listen, either. If every single constituent demanded their representative voted a certain way, they are free to ignore them and vote differently. This substitutes their own wishes for the wishes of their supposedly sovereign constituents.

This is comparable to being free to boo at an umpire; you don't have any right to affect the umpire's decision, just to express your displeasure with it.

But being able to boo at an umpire doesn't make a spectator sport a participatory sport. I don't believe it makes politics "participatory" either, unless elected officials are under some obligation to give consideration to their constituent's views.

When voting, your candidate may not win, but your input is being considered in a definite way. When take the time to lobby your elected representative, you are more likely to be ignored than listened to. They are free to disregard the views of even the majority of constituents.

If elected officials are interested in learning the wishes of their constituents, they can conduct a poll like they do when they're running for office. I think "Town Hall" meet-your-representative meetings are great, but they are not intended to reliably reflect the views of the majority, just those with the free time and incentive to attend. They are not necessarily even constituents, but could be from a neighboring district.

Officials govern this way because it's what we, as voters, have chosen. We vote for candidates who never agree, even insincerely, to govern based on the views of constituents (to directly represent them). We are content with booing and cheering our officials once they're in office, instead of requiring a candidate to govern based on the wishes of the majority.

After an election, the power vested by citizens in a public office is put in the hands of the winning candidate. They are then free to govern however they choose. They can make decisions based solely on self-interest, for example. The electorate generally does not secure any promise from candidates to govern according to the views of constituents.

A candidate for public office could potentially set their personal views aside for the sake of representing the views of their constituents. I believe this is in holding with the spirit of public service and representative democracy.

There is precedent for this relationship. Political appointments, like the chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff, are obligated to serve the wishes of the official who appointed them (e.g. the president). A military official has the authority to order the invasion of another country, but cannot do so because they think it's "right". They are expected to observe the wishes of the president, or be removed. The electorate, as a whole, could choose public officials who treat their wishes with the same respect.

If this happened, and voters required accurate representation from candidates for public office, it would eliminate the influence of lobbyists on elected officials. Since the will of the electorate would determine the actions of elected officials, the public would be the only valid target of lobbying. If a majority of the public is persuaded by a lobbyist, the elected official would act accordingly.

This would give the average citizen a chance to participate in the political process, through holding an informed opinion and having it count. They have an incentive to learn about issues, because their opinion counts.

Polling

Polling would be necessary for a representative to accurately measure the views of the electorate. This is like the reverse of a town hall, where the electorate goes to meet with their representative; the representative is going to the electorate.

Through sampling, it should be possible to get accurate results for little cost. Newspapers and colleges do this now. It would be cheaper than, say, holding a referendum where everyone votes. And more fair, in that people who are genuinely too busy would still be included. Others, with no real opinion or who feel they are uniformed, could opt out. In cases where opinion is closely divided (e.g. 49% to 51%). a large sample may be required.

This might be called "accurate representative democracy", as opposed to our current system, which might be described as democratic oligarchy. That is, government by the few, although they are chosen by popular vote.