It’s very different to argue that listening to public opinion is a good mean to achieve the end of good decisions than to argue that listening to public opinion is the end in itself.
In continental political thought the two concept were named by Rousseau volonté générale and volonté tous.
It’s an Anglo-American fallacy that the two are the same. The guilt goes to people like Adam Smith.
Part of the idea of representative democracy is that it’s easier to decide who the experts on an issue happen to be to let them make the decisions than to decide the issues through direct democracy.
That politicians only care about what the majority of the populace thinks is an artefact of the way that voting works, it doesn’t matter if they win with 70% or 90% of the vote. Not all possible systems have that problem.
In the real world the political systems in the West don’t have that problem. Certain minorities have political power while others don’t. Democracy is about more than the act of ticking a box every four years. The process is a lot more complex.
Part of the idea of representative democracy is that it’s easier to decide who the experts on an issue happen to be to let them make the decisions than to decide the issues through direct democracy.
I’m not arguing for direct democracy…
Democracy is about more than the act of ticking a box every four years. The process is a lot more complex.
True, I was over simplifying. And monarchies are not just the absolute rule of a single person. That was a odious feature of them though. Like wise for the ability of the rulers to completely ignore counter votes if they are not a large percentage.
We switched from monarchies to democracies and have been better for it. Can we switch to something else? If so how would you evaluate it theoretically?
At least in continental Europe we didn’t switch to democracy in the sense that we created a system that’s supposed to sum up all individual interests and turn them into public policy.
Neither in theory nor in practice.
The UK never really switched away from being a monarchy but is some form of hybrid.
I haven’t read the founding fathers of the US, so I’m not totally sure about what they wanted. They however created institutions like the supreme court that are at odds with the desire to have the sum of individual interests guide public policy.
If so how would you evaluate it theoretically?
Does the public policy follow the public interest (volonté générale)? Timeless decision theory helps with the details.
And monarchies are not just the absolute rule of a single person. That was a odious feature of them though.
Before Louis XIV there were monarchies that weren’t about the absolute rule of a single person. Local princes held quite a lot of power.
Today you have a bunch of small minority groups who reside in Washington who have quite a lot of political power without being formally elected.
It’s very different to argue that listening to public opinion is a good mean to achieve the end of good decisions than to argue that listening to public opinion is the end in itself.
In continental political thought the two concept were named by Rousseau volonté générale and volonté tous. It’s an Anglo-American fallacy that the two are the same. The guilt goes to people like Adam Smith.
Part of the idea of representative democracy is that it’s easier to decide who the experts on an issue happen to be to let them make the decisions than to decide the issues through direct democracy.
In the real world the political systems in the West don’t have that problem. Certain minorities have political power while others don’t. Democracy is about more than the act of ticking a box every four years. The process is a lot more complex.
I’m not arguing for direct democracy…
True, I was over simplifying. And monarchies are not just the absolute rule of a single person. That was a odious feature of them though. Like wise for the ability of the rulers to completely ignore counter votes if they are not a large percentage.
We switched from monarchies to democracies and have been better for it. Can we switch to something else? If so how would you evaluate it theoretically?
At least in continental Europe we didn’t switch to democracy in the sense that we created a system that’s supposed to sum up all individual interests and turn them into public policy.
Neither in theory nor in practice.
The UK never really switched away from being a monarchy but is some form of hybrid. I haven’t read the founding fathers of the US, so I’m not totally sure about what they wanted. They however created institutions like the supreme court that are at odds with the desire to have the sum of individual interests guide public policy.
Does the public policy follow the public interest (volonté générale)? Timeless decision theory helps with the details.
Before Louis XIV there were monarchies that weren’t about the absolute rule of a single person. Local princes held quite a lot of power. Today you have a bunch of small minority groups who reside in Washington who have quite a lot of political power without being formally elected.