Delegate or representative?
With all of the election craziness, I started thinking again about one my favorite all-time debates: should elected officials and other leaders act as delegates or representatives? Anyone who graduated from high school probably remembers this debate (maybe you even had to write a paper on it). At the heart of the debate are two questions.
The first question is this: how do you believe democracy should work? If you ask most people, their response is that everyone's vote counts equally and the majority rules. That would lend itself more towards elected officials as representatives. A representative's job is to carry out the will of the people even if he/she disagrees with their wishes. Some would say this is a truly democratic setup and anything less is not acceptable. True democracy, where everyone's vote counts equally and elected officials do what the people want, work really well with an informed population that knows everything about the issues they're voting on. Democracy falls apart when uninformed people vote on issues.
I'm a fan of democracy, in general, but the problem is that stupid people's votes count just as much as intelligent people's votes. I happen to believe that this is a huge problem in the United States. When I vote for something, it's because I understand pretty well what I'm voting for or against; when Joe the Plumber votes for something, it's because he saw a pretty sign on the way to the voting booth. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people in this country voted one way or another on at least one proposition that they didn't really understand in the past election. Democracy completely fails when the stupid are in the majority and representatives then carry out their wishes.
The second question relating to a delegate versus a representative is this: what do you believe a good leader is? Representatives aren't leaders, they're puppets or gophers, just there to deliver what the people demand. If, on the other hand, you believe that leaders deserve to be elected to office, then what you're really looking for is a delegate. A delegate takes the people's wishes into account but ultimately uses his/her best judgement in making decisions. In a perfect system, delegates keep the government moving along at a good clip and with good results; the government would come to a standstill if elected officials always waited for the public to decide on every issue.
Intelligent people know that they don't know everything; stupid people think that they know everything. I consider myself to be a part of the former group, and I've always believed that elected officials should be delegates, pure leaders. I want to send someone to Washington that I know understands the world of government and international politics better than I do. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone how to deal with foreign dignitaries or when to change the interest rate. I would elect someone who I believe can make those choices in a logical way. The popular decision isn't always the right decision, and we need people in government who can make the hard decisions even when the majority of people disagree with the approach.
The same debate rages on with leaders in corporations. Should they do what the shareholders want all the time? Should team leads always be taking polls to see what should happen? In my opinion, the answer to both questions is no. Every process slows down when everything is put up for vote. To use a sports analogy, could you imagine if the quarterback had to poll each of the other 10 teammates on the field to find out what play they wanted to run? It would be chaos.
Leaders must be allowed to lead if they are to be effect, they must be allowed to be delegates until they lose the trust of the people; then they must be replaced.
November 25th, 2008 - 13:35
Interesting analysis, Nicholas.
America, as an egalitarian nation, believes in an ethos of the Saintly Everyman. Joe the Plumber was a deeply flawed attempt to build off “Mr Smith Goes to Washington.”
American Populism insinuates that intelligence and knowledge somehow run counter to goodness and common sense, which is why Sarah Palin is a heroine to so many people in spite of her many limitations. Meanwhile, people like Barack Obama is an “elitist” because he uses big words that are meant to exclude those who didn’t go a fancy college.
Here’s another thought exercise: Suppose that only “intelligent” people (by whatever measure) could vote. How would that change who got elected, and how would it change the conduct of our government?