

Disrupting Politics Part I - For the People, By the People - brandoncarl
http://blog.brandoncarl.com/2012/12/disrupting-politics-part-i-for-people.html

======
smacktoward
_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
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
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
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.

