4 ms·

Personally I think a representative system is more workable than a direct system for exactly the reason you've highlighted it's not feasible to expect every vot

Personally I think a representative system is more workable than a direct system for exactly the reason you've highlighted it's not feasible to expect every voter to be an expert on every issue, you need to be able to delegate the responsibility to someone better informed. The idea in theory is that it is the full time job of the elected representative to stay informed on the issues and advance the interest of their constituents. I think this probably worked better when electorates were more homogenous, going back historically to a time when towns (and the major districts of cities) were focused around one (or a limited few) key industries. During that time I imagine it was much easier for an elected representative to know what was in the interests of their constituents. Modern cities and towns tend to be quite diverse which makes it a lot harder for a single representative to adequately advocate for the majority of their electorate. Maybe there needs to be some thought given to organizing electoral representation around something other than geographical area. It is a difficult problem I'm not sure if too many other options have been attempted in the past. I'm not an expert but I suspect the roots of current system with people in a common location electing a representative for their area evolved out of feudalism where you had a land holding lord in charge of all the serfs in an area. How did other historical democracies work? (I know Greek city states used direct democracy and I think Rome Senate had some kind of rotating system where people took turns). Outside of democracy I think some communists messed around with representation along class lines during the Russian revolution the soviet councils were organized with a representative from each of the soldiers, the peasants and the workers of the area. Some dictatorships have had 'grand councils' (and the like) but no idea how people were assigned to them, I suspect not in a representative manner...

hgsgm 4y ago
It's not a matter of small towns. It's a matter of having differing positions on taxes, abortion, police, etc, etc.
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
IIRC in Rome people voting by social class (plebe, patrician, equestrian, something like that). > "Maybe there needs to be some thought given to organizing electoral representation around something other than geographical area." Various thought has been. I think "party lists" are one of them. Since computers have made calculations easier I'm in favor (for things like the House of Representatives) of electing multiple candidates per district, but weighting their power within the House by the number or proportion of votes they received. And maybe making a 5% cutoff to be elected to prevent too many representatives, or doing something with ranked choice voting.
panick21_ 4y ago
There are many other issues as well. Modenr Governments have many levels, and how your voting power plays out on various levels is hugely complicated and matters. Geography is clearly still important. Voting with all other butchers of the nations about what kind of public transport system should exists is of course dumb. But in some sense, by extension voting geographically for a person in your district to discuss if going to war with X nations or how abortion should be handled makes less sense. Also if you vote geographically for somebody that then decides over the whole nation can lead to the effect of the national will being manipulated to improve individual districts to gain voting power. The president in the US is really the only person who represents the nation, everybody else is primarily interested in their district or state. In Switzerland we don't vote for any person on federal level, only specific issues. And that is even before you get to the question of how power, taxation and so on should be distributed over all these levels. That a whole other can of worms. Democracy is really whole can of worms.

hgsgm 4y ago

It's not a matter of small towns. It's a matter of having differing positions on taxes, abortion, police, etc, etc.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

IIRC in Rome people voting by social class (plebe, patrician, equestrian, something like that). > "Maybe there needs to be some thought given to organizing electoral representation around something other than geographical area." Various thought has been. I think "party lists" are one of them. Since computers have made calculations easier I'm in favor (for things like the House of Representatives) of electing multiple candidates per district, but weighting their power within the House by the number or proportion of votes they received. And maybe making a 5% cutoff to be elected to prevent too many representatives, or doing something with ranked choice voting.

panick21_ 4y ago

There are many other issues as well. Modenr Governments have many levels, and how your voting power plays out on various levels is hugely complicated and matters. Geography is clearly still important. Voting with all other butchers of the nations about what kind of public transport system should exists is of course dumb. But in some sense, by extension voting geographically for a person in your district to discuss if going to war with X nations or how abortion should be handled makes less sense. Also if you vote geographically for somebody that then decides over the whole nation can lead to the effect of the national will being manipulated to improve individual districts to gain voting power. The president in the US is really the only person who represents the nation, everybody else is primarily interested in their district or state. In Switzerland we don't vote for any person on federal level, only specific issues. And that is even before you get to the question of how power, taxation and so on should be distributed over all these levels. That a whole other can of worms. Democracy is really whole can of worms.