5 ms·

Electing someone, at least in a democratic system, with a mandate would be quite foolhardy. 1. It signals that the candidate has a lack of interest in doing th

Electing someone, at least in a democratic system, with a mandate would be quite foolhardy. 1. It signals that the candidate has a lack of interest in doing the actual job. In fairness, you may share the same lack of interest. It is certainly the easy way out, but nobody ever said that democracy is easy. If you really don't want democracy there are better options than trying to pretend. 2. Even if you buy into the mandate presented during an election campaign, it is going to be woefully out of date before it can be executed on. The state of the world is constantly changing. Which means you still have to put in the work to oversee the employee you hired, buying you little if you thought #1 would be a shortcut.

pjc50 3y ago
> Electing someone, at least in a democratic system, with a mandate would be quite foolhardy. In the UK there's "supposed to be" a commitment to following a party manifesto, and voting for a party is deemed to be a mandate for the manifesto. Not really binding in most cases, but it is part of the constitution. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/salisbury-doctrine/ https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/salisbur...
ethanbond 3y ago
(1) is what elections are. It authorizes the mandate proposed by the candidate during the election cycle. Democracies aren't really about giving individuals authority to exercise their will, they're about authorizing individuals to execute the will of the people who elected the individual. I.e. it would be more proper for a candidate to pursue a platform they were elected on but which they no longer personally believe in than it would be for them to get elected on platform X then pursue platform Y. One obvious reason is that you actually can't know whether they changed their mind X -> Y or whether they knew X had a higher chance of election than Y. In either scenario, their mandate is for X, not Y, and they ought to be somewhat beholden to that. Of course not beholden against all new information, compromises, or circumstances. All of this wiggle room and the individual's propensity for wishy-washiness is considered during the election and is, in fact, part of the mandate. Some people prefer a candidate who has shown willingness to compromise, others do not. Again, in either case, candidates are expected to behave similarly to how the electorate expected them to behave. Point (2) is a valid one. The modern world changes very, very quickly and this is indeed a problem for democracies, but it's a problem only because all of this^ is true. We could simply elect tyrants (not in the pejorative sense) and they can react reflexively to the changing world, but that's not really how democracies work. This dynamic is exactly why crises (a fast-changing world) push democracies toward tyranny.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Democracies aren't really about giving individuals authority to exercise their will, they're about authorizing individuals to execute the will of the people who elected the individual. Yes, but the election is merely the hiring process. Democracy takes place when you visit your hired representative on the regular, to keep them informed of where you are at with the changing state of the world. That does not mean the employee has only one boss, but it also doesn't mean you can just disappear and never speak to your employee again. I mean, you can, but don't expect favourable results. They are certainly not mind readers. If you don't want to put in the hard work of staying on top of your employee, that's fine, but if you are not going to engage in democracy why keep up the facade? Certainly, if you are going to sit back and not participate, interests will go towards those who do (e.g. lobbyists).
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    That's why the elected mandate is important: the election cycle is the closest we have to population-scale mind reading. The dynamic you're describing (people with more time or money being "heard more") is an antidemocratic bug, not a feature. And yes, I'm aware that this is the reality, "if you want X you have to go fight for it" etc. etc; that's not what we're talking about here.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      It is not about fighting. The job of your representative is to literally listen to what you have to say and take in that information to bring to the central meeting place. This is what you are hiring for. Indeed, they have to collate it with the information given from everyone else – it is not just about you – but it does include you. If someone comes telling you that they aren't going to listen and only shove through what they want, you know you've got the wrong person for the job. You want to hire someone who you can trust, not someone who is determined. If there is a bug, it is people being too lazy to show up to speak to their employee. No doubt it is easier to show up when you have more resources. Most things in life are easier when you have more resources. But that brings us back to questioning: Why keep up the facade if you don't want to participate in democracy? There are other systems. Democracy is not the be all and end all. It can work well when the people are ready to put in the hard work, but if all you can muster is casting a ballot (if you can even manage that), why bother?

pjc50 3y ago

> Electing someone, at least in a democratic system, with a mandate would be quite foolhardy. In the UK there's "supposed to be" a commitment to following a party manifesto, and voting for a party is deemed to be a mandate for the manifesto. Not really binding in most cases, but it is part of the constitution. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/salisbury-doctrine/ https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/salisbur...

ethanbond 3y ago

(1) is what elections are. It authorizes the mandate proposed by the candidate during the election cycle. Democracies aren't really about giving individuals authority to exercise their will, they're about authorizing individuals to execute the will of the people who elected the individual. I.e. it would be more proper for a candidate to pursue a platform they were elected on but which they no longer personally believe in than it would be for them to get elected on platform X then pursue platform Y. One obvious reason is that you actually can't know whether they changed their mind X -> Y or whether they knew X had a higher chance of election than Y. In either scenario, their mandate is for X, not Y, and they ought to be somewhat beholden to that. Of course not beholden against all new information, compromises, or circumstances. All of this wiggle room and the individual's propensity for wishy-washiness is considered during the election and is, in fact, part of the mandate. Some people prefer a candidate who has shown willingness to compromise, others do not. Again, in either case, candidates are expected to behave similarly to how the electorate expected them to behave. Point (2) is a valid one. The modern world changes very, very quickly and this is indeed a problem for democracies, but it's a problem only because all of this^ is true. We could simply elect tyrants (not in the pejorative sense) and they can react reflexively to the changing world, but that's not really how democracies work. This dynamic is exactly why crises (a fast-changing world) push democracies toward tyranny.

randomdata 3y ago
> Democracies aren't really about giving individuals authority to exercise their will, they're about authorizing individuals to execute the will of the people who elected the individual. Yes, but the election is merely the hiring process. Democracy takes place when you visit your hired representative on the regular, to keep them informed of where you are at with the changing state of the world. That does not mean the employee has only one boss, but it also doesn't mean you can just disappear and never speak to your employee again. I mean, you can, but don't expect favourable results. They are certainly not mind readers. If you don't want to put in the hard work of staying on top of your employee, that's fine, but if you are not going to engage in democracy why keep up the facade? Certainly, if you are going to sit back and not participate, interests will go towards those who do (e.g. lobbyists).
- ethanbond 3y ago
  That's why the elected mandate is important: the election cycle is the closest we have to population-scale mind reading. The dynamic you're describing (people with more time or money being "heard more") is an antidemocratic bug, not a feature. And yes, I'm aware that this is the reality, "if you want X you have to go fight for it" etc. etc; that's not what we're talking about here.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    It is not about fighting. The job of your representative is to literally listen to what you have to say and take in that information to bring to the central meeting place. This is what you are hiring for. Indeed, they have to collate it with the information given from everyone else – it is not just about you – but it does include you. If someone comes telling you that they aren't going to listen and only shove through what they want, you know you've got the wrong person for the job. You want to hire someone who you can trust, not someone who is determined. If there is a bug, it is people being too lazy to show up to speak to their employee. No doubt it is easier to show up when you have more resources. Most things in life are easier when you have more resources. But that brings us back to questioning: Why keep up the facade if you don't want to participate in democracy? There are other systems. Democracy is not the be all and end all. It can work well when the people are ready to put in the hard work, but if all you can muster is casting a ballot (if you can even manage that), why bother?