Story Comments

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

That's not quite what I meant. The issue is not that there aren't enough people in government, but that the layers of representation are not there.

The vast number of people in government includes all the support staff and those running government-sponsored programs. I'm talking simply about the elected representatives being insufficient to represent the people.

A concerned citizen with a valid point will likely be ignored by a representative who has 6,000,000 constituents.

That same citizen, in a constituency of 1000 would likely be listened to. And if that representative listens and agrees, then as one of 1000 low-reps reporting to a mid-rep, they could bring it to the next level, and if that mid-rep agrees, they could bring it to a high-rep. That valid message from a single citizen could make its way up to the Senator making decisions, and be one of a thousand, rather than one of 6,000,000.

I did think about this quite seriously while running for office in Canada. If elected, I would have represented 100,000 people, and there is no way that I could hear all of their concerns. Especially since many would be the same and hearing them over and over would waste an incredible amount of time. If elected, I planned to listen through the heads of the community organizations, get them to filter the thousands of identical requests into a single request (maybe telling me how many times they heard it). In that way, I could hear ALL requests in a manageable fashion, and every citizen would have a voice.

But it relies on a lot of work from the community organization leaders. Work which they may not want to do.

A layered government, where no-one represents more than 1,000 people (much like a business, where no manager would have anywhere near that many subordinates) is the only way of organizing and hearing everyone. True, it takes away direct contact from citizen to Senator, but for the average citizen, that direct contact is nothing but an illusion.

What I've just described is the theory behind the Electoral College. A group elected by the citizenry to choose the lawmakers. The citizenry, according to the founding fathers, should not directly elect the President. Because they do, the President elected is the one who can advertise the best. And that means he is a member of one of the 2 major parties. That means he is the one who panders the most to lobbyists and special interests (because they in turn give him those advertising dollars).

If citizens were to vote for an elector for their values, and that elector were free to vote for ANYONE for President, then the electors would be responsible to the citizens, and the President would be responsible to the electors. As it is, there is very little responsibility, because of the huge numbers involved. The electoral college is only an obfuscation of the popular vote, because people don't even know who the electors are, just who they have pledged to vote for.

0 Replies