Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

will of the majority

make their own decisions

[Lagslayer]

What purpose do you believe elected representatives serve?

1. They are elected to always implement the will of the majority, regardless of it's effect.
2. They are elected to make the smart or "correct" decision, regardless of popularity.

I would encourage everyone to carefully consider the implications of both sides of the argument before they make their choice.

[Frumple]

... they're intended to serve as the people that elect them intend them to serve. It can mean serving the will of the majority verbatim, or it may not, depending on the society and the situation.

Which is to say, neither 1 nor 2 exclusively, but either, both, or at times neither. It's not a dichotomy, nor is it something that a good representative will cleave to in all situations, nor is it something I've seen representatives expected to cleave to in all situations. Ideally, they are not mouth pieces, but specialists in a particular field (statespersonship, generally), with the skills and appropriate actions suited to such.

In any case, should the one posing the question not provide their own response, after the asking? Contribute when you ask others to contribute, when possible.

[mainiac]

They're elected to serve the people's Rawlsian interest.

[Moghjubar]

A politicians job is to get re-elected of course, everyone knows that.

[Andrew425]

A politicians job is to vote by their conscience.

It is the voters job to pick the candidate they most agree with.

[kaijyuu]

The consequence of #1 is that the public might not be very informed on an issue and the politician in question would vote against what they know is the correct decision simply to appease them.

The consequence of #2 is that the politician may lie to voters to get elected and then do whatever the hell they want with the justification that they know better.


So the answer is somewhere inbetween.

[Lagslayer]

Since there seems to be confusion as to what I meant, I shall clarify.

1. This is popular opinion taking precedence over discretion when the two come into conflict.
2. This is discretion taking precedence over popular opinion when the two come into conflict.

It's not to say that a decision can't appease both equally well. I'm not saying that there always is a "smart" choice. I'm talking specifically when the "smart" choice does not line up with the "popular" choice. Just because there is overlap does not mean that they aren't mutually exclusive. I guess there could theoretically be a neutral answer, but why would anyone do that? Why would someone do the "smart" thing on one issue then the "popular" thing on the next when they have similar consequences?

I won't state my answer so as not to taint the responses. Though, for those who have paid attention to my past posts, you could probably guess which one I support.

[sjm9876]

Their job is the second, to use their discretion.
However, the job they actually do is to try and get reelected, which results in the majority opinion.

[misko27]

Administrators administrate, journalist journal, so politicians politic.

Real answer when I can post more.

[Eagle_eye]

If we're talking about a theoretical morally perfect politician, then they should do what they think is right. Unfortunately, no such politicians exist.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

They're elected to make the best decisions they can to help their constituents - not just whoever voted for them - and simultaneously work toward upholding and improving the health of the government.

But in reality they tend to spend a percentage of their time chasing bribes, pandering to their power base, and entrenching themselves at the expense of the government's stability.

And if you don't like what they're doing, you can vote for someone else next year!

But in reality whoever has more advertising budget typically wins (and being the incumbent helps) and enough people don't care about politics enough to do anything about it, and we never hear about most of the shady dealings that would make us want to kick someone out.

Applies to America, so if your country has a much better democracy then I'm happy for you!

[Mephansteras]

Technically, it's #2, since the main reason to have a Representative government is so that politicians can spend the time and effort necessary to properly understand the laws that are proposed and the consequences of those laws. Your average person isn't going to be able to fully understand laws the way they are written and most have little inclination or time to read them even if they could understand them.

It often doesn't work out that well, due to the nature of politics and the inherent corruption in the system.

On the other hand, looking at the way California's Proposition system works (where you do have everyone voting on laws) the alternative is actually worse. You can easily win over the majority of the public with a slick ad campaign and the proper endorsements, no matter how stupid or poorly-thought out a law is.

So I'm a bit inclined to think that #1 is even more flawed, even though neither is close to ideal.