8 ms·

Disrupting Politics Part I - For the People, By the People

9 points by brandoncarl 14y ago

smacktoward 14y ago
In this framework, a representative exists as an "aggregator of wills". No. A representative in a representative democracy is not a simple aggregation of the wills of the people they represent. A representative is chosen to bring their own judgment to the questions the collective group faces, while balancing that judgment with the desires of the group. This is important because (as any software product manager will tell you) people don't always know what they want. They may think they do, but maybe they're confused, or they only know part of the story. Sometimes two things they think they want conflict with each other. The job of the representative is to sort through all those impulses and then make an informed decision about what policies will get the group closest to the group's overall priorities. You would be surprised if you go out and talk to voters on a given election day how many of them will say to you "I disagree with Candidate X's position on <issue I care about>, but I'm voting for him anyway because I think he's a good person." What they're saying is that they trust the candidate's judgment, and that's more important to them than how the candidate stands on a checklist of issues. This may seem naïve, but it's actually what makes representative democracy different from direct democracy; you're not voting on an issue, you're placing your trust in someone you believe in to speak for you on it.
- brandoncarl 14y ago
  I actually agree with you. The immediately preceding paragraph in my post said... "Is it best to elect officials who we believe to be more knowledgeable that ourselves, and to defer to their judgment on issues that are outside of our understanding? Or is it better for an official to serve as a direct representative of the people?" If the answer is the latter...in this framework, a representative exists as an "aggregator of wills". I'm basically laying out the two options you highlight.
csense 14y ago
Legislators are (in theory, at least) specialists whose full-time job is to study and debate the issues and decide what laws ought to be made. Most people only care about a few core issues; they don't have time to deeply research every issue, or study detailed proposals.
- brandoncarl 14y ago
  In theory, I think you're perfectly correct. In practice, things don't work out so nicely. That's why, under this kind of representation, politicians would serve as filters and educators. As well, I'm not dogmatically proposing this. Rather, saying that we don't "experiment" enough with what works and what doesn't. I'd simply like to see a candidate challenge the status quo, and evaluate whether it worked, or did not.

9 points by brandoncarl 14y ago

In this framework, a representative exists as an "aggregator of wills". No. A representative in a representative democracy is not a simple aggregation of the wills of the people they represent. A representative is chosen to bring their own judgment to the questions the collective group faces, while balancing that judgment with the desires of the group. This is important because (as any software product manager will tell you) people don't always know what they want. They may think they do, but maybe they're confused, or they only know part of the story. Sometimes two things they think they want conflict with each other. The job of the representative is to sort through all those impulses and then make an informed decision about what policies will get the group closest to the group's overall priorities. You would be surprised if you go out and talk to voters on a given election day how many of them will say to you "I disagree with Candidate X's position on <issue I care about>, but I'm voting for him anyway because I think he's a good person." What they're saying is that they trust the candidate's judgment, and that's more important to them than how the candidate stands on a checklist of issues. This may seem naïve, but it's actually what makes representative democracy different from direct democracy; you're not voting on an issue, you're placing your trust in someone you believe in to speak for you on it.

brandoncarl 14y ago
I actually agree with you. The immediately preceding paragraph in my post said... "Is it best to elect officials who we believe to be more knowledgeable that ourselves, and to defer to their judgment on issues that are outside of our understanding? Or is it better for an official to serve as a direct representative of the people?" If the answer is the latter...in this framework, a representative exists as an "aggregator of wills". I'm basically laying out the two options you highlight.

csense 14y ago

Legislators are (in theory, at least) specialists whose full-time job is to study and debate the issues and decide what laws ought to be made. Most people only care about a few core issues; they don't have time to deeply research every issue, or study detailed proposals.

brandoncarl 14y ago
In theory, I think you're perfectly correct. In practice, things don't work out so nicely. That's why, under this kind of representation, politicians would serve as filters and educators. As well, I'm not dogmatically proposing this. Rather, saying that we don't "experiment" enough with what works and what doesn't. I'd simply like to see a candidate challenge the status quo, and evaluate whether it worked, or did not.