We Da Peeps

In the previous post I listed some structural and contingent reasons why the relationship between voting and any idea of popular sovereignty is problematic. I didn ' t even mention some of the specific kludgy features of the U.S. system, such as the overrepresentation of small states in both the Senate and the Electoral College, which is itself an unwieldy and dangerous anachronism; gerrymandering; and obstacles to voting.However, let ' s assume we had none of those problems. In fact, propose a fantasy world in which we either had direct democracy -- all legislation by referendum -- or that representatives had to take a high quality poll of their constituencies and vote the way the majority wanted on every issue. I realize it ' s a practical impossibility -- it ' s a thought experiment. What would be the consequences? In the first place, as we ' ve already noted, most people have very limited understanding of public policy, whether its the underlying problems to which policy responds, the mechanisms of policy response, and the consequences of policies. These are mostly very complicated issues, and even policies crafted by experts in response to high levels of public consensus often have unintended consequences and need to be fixed, but there is still value in expertise. Ever since Plato some political philosophers have doubted the capacity of the people to rule themselves, and proposed rule by specially qualified people -- philosopher kings, in his words.* I certain...
Source: Stayin' Alive - Category: American Health Source Type: blogs