The Role of Elected Officials

[devonin]

The reason that elected officials shouldn't necessarily be 100% required to respect fully and only the wishes of their constituents is easy enough to describe:

The average person is an idiot.

By which I mean, the vast majority of the public lacks enough knowledge about the situations to know precisely what the consequences of their demands would be, they lack the training in implementing and arranging such things, and most importantly, they often, and oftentimes for no readily logical or apparant reason, change their mind.

While most people are pretty stable in their opinions on say, the death penalty, or abortion, or other major conceptual ideas (Things that operate entirely on "For or against" [And even then, many people (like me) tend towards "Yes with an if" or "No with a but"]) as opposed to more practical decisions, their opinions on current issues are famously fickle and prone to changes as each individually persuasive speaker has a minute on a soapbox.

So polls show the majority of Americans want out of Iraq...fair enough. How much of that do you think has to do with an informed knowledge of middle eastern political and social situations, an understanding of the logistics involved in pulling them out, and even a rough idea what the consequences of leaving would be? And how much of that do you think has to do with the fact that all kinds of other countries seem mad at them for it, and left-wing media is constantly bombarding them with statements about what a bad idea it is? (Please don't read that as a "The media is biased to the left" statement, I refer specifically to "the liberal elements of the media" there are just as many conservative elements)

The whole point of representative democracy is an understanding that the average person has neither the skills nor the inclination for political maneuvering and planning. They make small-scale areas where each representative can explain their stance on person issues to the constituants, and they make a decision on which official of the possible ones "Will best reflect" their own desires to the larger governmental forms.

I mean...So your state elects someone who "Is pro-life" and you said was elected for other reasons in a "pro choice area" that they ought to be required to advocate pro-choice legislation if/when it comes up...but what constitutes a "pro choice area"? Are 100% of the people there pro-choice? 51%? 50%+1? how many even have a concrete view on the subject if you asked them, versus how many have no opinion, or don't care?

Democracy has always been the tyrrany of the majority, where 51% of people can run roughshod over the other 49%, but forcing a representative to be constantly polling the people on each and every issue to find out what the majority think "right now" (Bearing in mind that two months later, or even the next day, they could get an entirely seperate result) would basically make the government completely unable to act.

Candidates for political office make public their stance on a variety of issues, and if confronted, especially publically, will provide their stance (or at least 'the party stance') on any issue you care to raise with them, and then you elect, as a whole package, the candidate you feel best represents your own interests.

Relambrien suggested frequent nationwide polls to gauge the general opinion of the country, but worried about what would happen when "problems arise that are beyond the average American" But unfortunately for his idea, I think the list of things that fit that category are "Most of them"

So you poll the American people, and they say "We want out of Iraq in 6 months" Let's say they vote that way overwhelmingly, say 90%.

Simple fact is, that's impossible. I mean, it -might- be in the realm of possibility to actually physically remove the bodies and equipment in that amount of time, but that's not what withdrawing from an occupied area actually means. Withdrawing isn't the same thing as Evacuating for the specific reason that they aren't the same thing.

So what happens then? 300 million people with little to no idea what is involved in a formal military withdrawl from an occupied area still under hostile enemy fire, and even less of an idea what the consequences would be for Iraq, the Middle East and the rest of the world demand that you undertake a horrendously ill-advised if not impossible course of action.

What do you do? Accede to their wishes and consequences be damned? Try to find some way to actually explain to 300 million people why that's not something you can do? Ignore them completely? Which is worse? The average american thinking that their opinion isn't being listened to/respected? Or being told outright "I'm sorry sir or maam, but your opinion is ignorant, misinformed, and stupid"

For the same reason that for matters of national security, the government can't/shouldn't necessarily tell all the people all of the information, it is simply not possible to explain the educated decisions made by panels of highly trained and experienced experts to what are essentially laymen. (yes yes, we can all riff on how the people in government aren't all necessarily experts, but theoretically at least)