Elected representatives are called as much because they represent something. But what? If representative democracy is different from direct democracy, then what is represented cannot be the same as a a direct record of the will of a group of people as manifested through a vote on a certain issue.
In fact elected representatives allow representation only of whole packages of beliefs, not single issues. The packages are voted for at special 'package' votes, which we call General elections. In this way voters are forced by the institutions of the state to accept some degree of tradeoff or difficult connection between different beliefs. The historical rationale for this is straightforward - if you did not insist on people voting for packages then different groups with passionate beliefs would vote for lots of self-interested but mutually conflicting policies. Sooner or later this would bring down the whole edifice of govenment in a screaming heap.
So we have representation to force packages and compromises on our greedy ways. But just because we need representation, does that mean we necessarily need representatives? Representatives do two things:
1) Ensure that the whole population gets a fair say.
2) Represent packages to vote for.
The first of these needs has in many cases been replaced by representative polling, with all their skews, weights, sample sizes and other trendy tools. And the second is already done more by parties than individuals.
None of this means that we should get rid of MPs. It just means that in the quest for innovation in representation we should start to ask what new combinations of tools, rules and technologies might be able to carry out the function of representation in a more demanding and consumerist era.
As you said, representatives do two things: 1) Ensure that the whole population gets a fair say. 2) Represent packages to vote for.
On the second, isn't it more the parties rather than the representatives that represent the packages? Is there not also a third function (ideally), in having a selection of people that can decide once they have been extensively exposed to the 'issue' and the evidence on both sides? This is something it is very hard to do with polling. I wonder if MORI or anyone similar has ever coupled questions on substantive issues, (are you in favour of EMU) with the epistemological counterpart (how much do you know about the EMU). Would that introduce its own biases? And would there be significant differences between the substantive responses given differences in epistemological responses. I'll go and ask Ben now.
With, for example, deliberative polls, they achieve much of this third function (though their legitimacy on policy questions is unknown), though it's interesting that focus groups etc. are famous for their short shelf-life as a representative body - they quickly become unrepresentative because of the biases that being in that group introduces, and yet parliament is one big focus group, spanning years. Hmm.
Posted by: Richard | January 27, 2004 at 11:50 PM
Or perhaps this is a red herring. Now that the top judges in both the US (2000) and the UK (2004) have made entirely mysterious, politically motivated and devastating interventions into our respective constitutions, perhaps the bigger question is re-framing the question of 'justice'...
Posted by: Will Davies | January 31, 2004 at 08:23 PM
Burgers beware theres a comedy cartoon gun in town and it has you in its sights.
Posted by: sildenafil citrate | January 07, 2010 at 10:12 PM
I agree with the previous post.
Posted by: Pamela | June 05, 2010 at 12:13 AM
Advise please a good program for converting http://odsitangraw.t35.com/map7.html
video to different formats. Just write whatever they enjoy, who and what program is like the main thing for that. And I will choose for myself. Of course, it is desirable to free software. I would be all very grateful.
Very much interested in the format flv.
Posted by: ViepageJuivip | August 09, 2010 at 07:16 AM