We Da Peeps

In the previous post I listed some structural and contingent reasons why the relationship between voting and any idea of popular sovereignty is problematic. I didn't even mention some of the specific kludgy features of the U.S. system, such as the overrepresentation of small states in both the Senate and the Electoral College, which is itself an unwieldy and dangerous anachronism; gerrymandering; and obstacles to voting.

However, let's assume we had none of those problems. In fact, propose a fantasy world in which we either had direct democracy -- all legislation by referendum -- or that representatives had to take a high quality poll of their constituencies and vote the way the majority wanted on every issue. I realize it's a practical impossibility -- it's a thought experiment. What would be the consequences?

 

In the first place, as we've already noted, most people have very limited understanding of public policy, whether its the underlying problems to which policy responds, the mechanisms of policy response, and the consequences of policies. These are mostly very complicated issues, and even policies crafted by experts in response to high levels of public consensus often have unintended consequences and need to be fixed, but there is still value in expertise. Ever since Plato some political philosophers have doubted the capacity of the people to rule themselves, and proposed rule by specially qualified people -- philosopher kings, in his words.*

 

I certainly don't go that far. For one thing, the philosopher king's conception of what's good for the people would very likely differ from their own, and I have no idea how this person is to be identified and elevated to power.  Hitler, Stalin and Mao no doubt thought they knew what was best and were the smartest about how to achieve it. In fact, that pretension was essential to Mao's cult of personality. However, we do need mechanisms for injecting expertise into the policy making process, if rule by the people is to have any chance to result in their getting what they actually want.

Which brings us to the next essential point, which is that what "the people" want is not definable, even in principle. You could try putting a binary proposition before the electorate and decree that whatever got more than 50.0001% would become law, but in most cases many people wouldn't want either one, or if they did at least have a preference they would demand a different choice. And believe me, as any survey researcher well knows, the answers you get depend on how you ask the questions, and in what order, and in what notable events might have happened yesterday. And some questions are contingent. I want A only if B, but if C I want D, whereas other people have a different preference structure and they can't be reconciled.

Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is that it's a very dubious proposition that minorities have no rights. If a majority can rule without restriction, then the Bill of Rights goes away. That's what it's there for. Congress shall make no law . . .  even if 90% of the people want it to. Democracies can vote themselves out of existence, in fact, and have done so. A related problem is that protecting liberty for one person often requires constraining liberty for another. Democracy and freedom obviously don't mean that you can do whatever you want to, they mean you have to be bound by rules and laws.

Glib answers don't work. The process of governing in a Republic means constant tradeoffs, and it means that some people will be dissatisfied, and that it will often be the majority. And there certainly isn't any reason why a person can't express that dissatisfaction, and disapprove of the wishes of the majority or the outcomes of the political process, regardless of whether the majority approves. On the other hand you do have to obey the law, but on the third hand sometimes people have made very compelling arguments for exceptions and they are honored for having done so. (Viz. Rosa Parks, to take a relatively non-controversial example.)

What I am saying is that it's complicated, and in fact it's a good deal more complicated than I have made it so far.

*"Unless, said I, either philosophers become kings in our states or those whom we now call our kings and rulers take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophic intellgence, while the motley horde of the natures who at present pursue either apart from the other are compulsory excluded, there can be no cessation of troubles, dear Glaucon, for our states, nor, I fancy, for the human race either." The Republic,