And in the same vein, a body of physical people are in a position, or can be in a position, to get informed in ways the public cannot without a robust media (and good luck getting a robust media going again). Such as talking with affected and affecting parties, setting up investigations, negotiating with groups, etc. Because of that knowledge and position, it is inevitable that, even with the best of intentions and a mindset and personality that coincides with those who elected the person, that they will do things that their constituents would not want them to do. Such as environmental legislation in a climate-denying district that would be inordinately affected by climate change.
Some of these are representative, some not.
In the case of truly classified knowledge, I admit that you might be obligated to make a decision different than what polls of focus groups would show. But even then, you should always make your decisions from the basis of "what would my constituents vote, IF they knew this?" which is subtly but critically different from "what is best for my constituents in my personal opinion, knowing this?"
The first quote is representation, the second quote is paternalism.
By the way, in most cases, you don't even have to guess. If you have little time pressure and no classified relevant information, you can simply set up focus groups and polls and figure out what your constituents ACTUALLY would do, and just do that. A representative only ever even needs autonomy in the case of classified info or fast paced negotiation. And still, in both cases, you should go by "what would they do" not "what should they do" if you are going to be a true representative.
In the case of climate denying districts, I disagree with your final conclusion. People in those districts have full access to the science and have been informed about it many times. You as a congressperson hearing the same thing again cannot reasonably conclude that your constituents would vote in favor of environmental legislation "if only they knew" because they do know, and they still don't want to. So you should vote against it. Otherwise you're not representing. IF you are truly convinced that the form of information you got is JUST SO MUCH BETTER than the public's available version, then go grab a focus group, give them the much better version of the story, and see if they change their tune. Go with whatever they say.
All that being said...
I happen to personally think that a paternalistic system would probably be better than a representative one. I would prefer to have scientists be exclusively hired to determine science policy, and economists to determine economic policy, and people with police and FBI experience to run any relevant investigations for the heads of state when needed, and teachers and psychologists to run education policy, and blah blah.
However it's not my place to just foist these opinions of mine on the American people, nor is it a representative's place, who was put in office AS a representative. Unless part of his platform was to overturn the representative system.
The people have a right to KNOWINGLY disenfranchise themselves in favor of experts, if they decide that's best for themselves. Not to get ambushed without their consent.
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 821870 times)