Sod the Public: We Need Representatives, Not Delegates

Wilhelm

'' I dont mean to pick on David Kerr.''

Dont tell fibs now, Alex, you meant to pick on him.

DavidDP

I agree to an extent, Alex. We should be electing delegates, to make the decisions, not representatives who simply take them.

But I think the rise of the ego has only a little to do with it.Firstly, you have the consumer revolution. People are used to services and goods which closely match what they want, and even to insist on the creation of tailor made ones. But there has also been an information revolution-people are far more connected than before, and believe that they know a lot more and understand a lot more. This is a far cry from even 30 years ago. Of course, a lot of what is online is wrong, and even an echo chamber, but that reinforces beliefs. You only have to look at some of those commenting here.

Geoff Miller

"I'd rather have men and women of independent mind "elected" from Rotten Boroughs than have Parliament be entirely subject to the whims and biases of the electorate".

Independent mind or, admit it, where Rotten Boroughs are concerned - Marxists like Straw, Harman, Blunket, Mandleson, Miliband et al.

Why has this article been written?

Perhaps because the British People are sick to the back teeth of politicians who put their ideologies, funders and foreign supporters ahead of OUR interests and will be seeking a change at the next election.

Running scared of an outbreak of democracy eh?

If the public rise up, then the solution is easy - trash Democracy. The politicians know best.

Immigration, wars, terrorism, Islamism, multiculturalism, relativism - all repeatedly rejected by the public but imposed upon us anyway.

We've had enough.

And if you take away our vote - there's always the bullet mate.

Will J

You underestimate the public's ability to make sound judgement if given a proper chance, which the British people very rarely are owing to the lack of referenda. The good thing about referenda is they give the people's considered judgement rather than their snap judgement, which is what you are worrying about. I think you are also overlooking the people's right to make decisions, regardless of whether you think they are wise or just.

And while it may be a nice fantasy to believe that the party-based electoral system allows us to reliably elect enlightened persons with good judgement and honest intent, the reality as we know is quite different. Democracy may not be ideal, but it remains the least worst system.

Peter From Maidstone

A delegate should not be somebody who chooses to consistently ignore the opinions of those who elected him, as is the present case. I agree that we should not have referenda on everything, but things have moved on, democracy must develop or it is no democracy at all - and what we have presently is not a democracy at all. Indeed we have designed a system where the majority of people in England did not vote for the Labout party and yet the Labout party is able to impose its own designs on the nation without restraint. This is not democracy.

There must be a mechanism for public concern to be registered on many issues. If no-one makes their concern known then it is probably fine to let MPs use their judgement. But if a large proportion of people DO have a consistent view then it is undemocractic for it to be ignored. People are not entirely stupid. They can have things explained to them, but if they consistently have view then this should have some effect on our own government. If it does not then we have a dictatorship not a democracy.

DavidDP

"The good thing about referenda is they give the people's considered judgement rather than their snap judgement, which is what you are worrying about"

There's no evidence of that. Further, there is evidence to suggest that people will sometimes vote to give the government of the day a kicking, rather than on the merits of the issue. And that's not addressing the problem of question bias, and the inability of a referendum to present much more than a binary option of all or nothing.

Rhoda Klapp

It's a false dichotomy between representatives and delegates, when all we actually get is lobby fodder. And precious little informed debate or indeed anything but short-termism. If politicians are only going to concern themselves with how a policy will play in the Guardian or the Mail, or at PMQs, it is purely academic to woory about the question raised by the post.

Michael Booth

Rhoda Klapp - well said. Under our present system any MP who wants to further his/her career has to be 'on message' and vote as directed. OK now and then you hear of rebellions over this or that issue, but the fact is our Party system is no friend to democracy. Having read the above article I am struck by its patrician-tone: seems to me the plebs can vote but superior beings will decide in their name, for their own good. Not so sure this works for me - if all men are equal under the law and I have as much right to be heard as the next man, why do I not have the right to be consulted over issues which directly affect my life? Why am I bound to rules and systems which are inherited and about which I have had no say?

ndm

In Federalist No. 10, James Hamilton pondered the problem of factionalism in politics:

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

ndm

Federalist No 10 was, in fact, written by James Madison.

daniel maris

Is this a dig at Daniel Hannan MEP who issued a call for direct democracy? Is Massie determined nothing should stop the March of Brussels.

Well I support Hannan 100% on that. What is wrong with the UK is the more or less complete absence of direct democracy barring jury service and the occasional once a decade referendum.

The faults of our democracy have been shown up a hundredfold in the last few decades: uneven constituencies delivering built in Labour majorities; the people of England saddled with a government they didn't vote for; MPs' snouts in the trough; nation-changing mass immigration permitted with no debate and no vote; taken to war without a vote in parliament; rampant executive power and the neutering of the legislature...it's a long list that I could easily expand upon.

We need to turn this round by a establishing a referenda system, similar to the Swiss model; we need to separate the executive from the legislature; we need to stop Carter F***ers stifling political debate; we need to reform our laws (a complete uncodified mess that the average person cannot even access on the internet - you only get the original statutes, not the amended versions - we don't even know what laws we have to obey! - and they aren't codified - they should be).

Beafeater

Socialists have delegates who are authorized to plunder and control on behalf of thieves and nannies. The Party consists of the delegates of the People.

Conservatives have representatives who are authorized to restrain government by thieves and nannies. Any vote taken beyond the warrant of the party manifesto is an act of dishonour to the voters. Votes of personal conscience - especially since conscience is susceptible to tabloid moral suasion - are fraudulent.

Constitutionally, in a two-party system, the whips are one of the most important defenses not only against rogue representatives - and the moral preening and shallow populism that motivate them - but also in maintaining representative government itself. In a nation where the socialists push towards totalitarian government, it is the conservative party whips who are the last ditch protection against the encroachment of big government. Not too comforting.

How are we to know whether a politician's judgment is one we respect or would agree with? Especially for conservatives, it is far more prudent to vote for a party hack who takes a good whipping.

daniel maris

Why shouldn't we - the people as a whole - vote on whether we want mass immigration, membership of the EU, higher or lower taxation, an English Parliament, euthanasia, vaccination, death penalty, nuclear power, wind energy etc etc.

There are plenty of issues where it is appropriate for people en masse to vote. It will encourage a more serious appreciation of what it means to be a citizen of this political community. It will ensure issues get properly debated.

This would not be a free for all. One can create proper procedures for the referendum process including petitioning, parliamentary scrutiny, independent verification of referendum questions, judicial review and translation into legislation.

But it really comes down to this: do you trust the people?

Fergus Pickering

Do I trust the people? No I bloody don't. The people are ignorant, uneducated and lazy, easily whipped to a frenzy and easily appeased. The people are a drunken rabble who will steal anything that is not nailed down, kick others to death in the street if they can get away with it and hang paediatricians from lamp posts. The people are Jonathan Ross walking on earth. Anything else you want to know about the people? Don't cant about savages, as Doctor Johnson said in a slightly different context. HE meant Africans in the jungle. I mean ... well, the people who voted in Tony and Gordon for twelve years. Which people are YOU talking about

Noa Zrk

"Otherwise we might as well just cut out the middle-men".

Now, this is an option well worth exploring.