I Think Representative Democracy is a Good Idea and We Should Give It a Try

Great piece as always Ben. I am 51 years old and I too have never felt truly represented. I am sure that you and I have differing views on a number of topics, but I think there is also a third option that quite honestly we almost had in the 1990s. In the 1992 election Ross Perot got roughly 19% of the vote. This gave us an opportunity to break the binary. Right now elections are an either/or.

I have not voted for either top of line candidate dating back to Obama era. I think the last 3 elections have arguably given us 3 of the worst candidates in history. When I tell people I am close to that I would not vote for either one of the two main candidates I am often met by "You’re throwing away your vote.:. Maybe that is correct, but one thing that keeps me optimistic is that my 16 year old when I told him my vote said well hopefully one of the other parties can get to 5% to get the matching funds. I was almost floored that he knew that.

If we can get one or two more parties above 5% in a few nationwide votes and possibly even pick a seat here or there, it breaks the binary. Then the two major parties would have to make a shift and figure out how to better represent all. If you are in a district with 40% to both of the two parties but 20% voting along the lines of one or more third parties, suddenly you have to figure out how to win votes from that 20%. It makes them have to respect the representation that should be their focus that they have shifted on to our shoulders.

Ben, have you written to your elected officials? This does not guarantee better representation, but reminds them of the opinions of their constituents.

Back in my college days I had a favorite professor in the politics department. I enjoyed this professor and ended up filling my schedule with his classes as I had openings. At the time, he was in the process of writing an autobiography of upstate NY congressman Barber Conable. Conable’s big contribution to political discourse in that time was that he published regular newsletters to send to his constituents in his district. These newsletters consisted mainly of him teaching the people of his how Washington worked.

As a dumb young adult, I remember thinking how funny it was that this professor was such a fan of this nobody congressman that was barely remembered in the late 90s, so how could this guy be so important, but as I got older and the political environment changed I started to put more thought into that.

For a while I thought that the technological advances of today over Conable’s age would make such a newsletter so much easier to produce. Imagine a world where those representatives are communicating to their voters about the things they are doing to represent them, discussing what compromises are made and why. Instead we get 1500 page bills filled with obscure clauses and none of the 438 representatives whose job is to vote on those things understands what is in there and why… Maybe this is all just nostalgia.

Today, the combination of people not knowing how relatively simple government functions work (see the ease of falling into conspiracy theories about voter rolls and more votes than voters) and politicians not caring about the views of those people unless they fit neatly into the two teams we all recognize seem like two sides of the same coin.

Good points. A weekly or hell even monthly newsletter from a representative just listing out some very basic things…5 biggest accomplishments of week, 5 biggest challenges, and maybe 1 major issue they are dealing with or is coming down pipeline would go a long way to ensuring that the people they represent are informed and likely getting the to reflect the values their constituents have as I am sure there would be feedback.

I get a frequent email (monthly to weekly depending on how many issues he has to talk about) from my congressional representative. I get this email (I believe) because I emailed him my opinions about a subject once. Didn’t ask to be put on a mailing list but there you go. My wife does not get this email (nor would she want to) despite the voter roles showing we live in the same household. The part of this note that resonated the most with me is this:

the idea of representative democracy has been flipped on its head, from a burden on politicians to represent us to a burden on us to find representation!

I am a big emailer/contactor of my state rep, state senator, congressional rep and senator. I find it fascinating to see the various responses I received from my elected representatives. My local state rep, once a year, sent our household a newsletter (via the mail) with contact information for himself and other local officials, agencies etc along with some news and accomplishments. He did not win re-election this year and the opposing party is now representing us. I am already hopeful for better communication as our previous representative very much represented his political party rather than his constituents.

I felt represented only once in my life. David Drier, in the CA 28th district. He (his office) is the only member of congress (this was in the early 2000’s) who, after I contacted him about an issue, mailed me a letter, hand signed, that outlined his actual policy thoughts, bills passed, proposed etc on the actual topic I contacted him about. And it included responses that showed someone (I am not naive enough to think it was him) had actually read my letter, read my questions and then responded to my points. My district was eventually re-drawn and I received form letters highlighting vague policy positions regarding the broad topic I had selected for my email going forward.
To be fair, those form letters are still better than the ghosting that usually occurs about 40% of the time from my representatives, even if they are usually sent months after I have contacted them.

Up until now, I had considered those Drier letters to be what it meant to be represented. But after thinking through what Ben wrote about being burdened to find representation, I would admit that even my Drier letters are lacking, despite being far and away the best communication and response I have ever received from an elected representative.

Another great note Ben. I think the issue of unrepresentative parties & politicians runs deeper than most people are willing to admit. Many who claim to ardently support a political party do so in what I call a “laundry” sort of way. Like how the New England Patriots will always represent me regardless of who wears the uniform or how shamefully incompetent the organization is. When I dig deeper on policy, tone, results (really anything) all the True Blue Ds and Red Blooded Rs I know fall into critiquing the other side in less than 2 minutes.

I have found that the Catholic teaching on “subsidiarity” has a lot to contribute to this conversation about the relationship between the local and the global.

Here’s a Wikipedia page about it.

This encyclical’s formulation of subsidiarity is the touchstone from which further interpretations tend to depart: “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.” As with many social encyclicals in the modern period, this one occurs in the historical context of the intensifying struggle between communist and capitalist ideologies, exactly forty years—hence the title—after the Vatican’s first public stance on the issue in Rerum novarum . Promulgated in 1931, Quadragesimo anno is a response to German National Socialism (Nazism) and Soviet communism, on one hand, and to Western European and American capitalist individualism on the other.

Like Karl Marx, you have identified the problem accurately, but I believe the implementation of your suggested solution will face serious challenges, such as:

1. Not all voters or issues are equal: Most people are not deeply invested in specific topics. If there are too many local issues, candidates will need to categorize and group them. What I foresee happening is that certain influential individuals, often on the fringe, may take center stage and steer the public’s attention toward specific issues. They could then provide more targeted data to your generative AI, focusing on the issues they prioritize.
2. Legacy polarizing issues: Even if you aim for a bottom-up representative democracy that focuses on local issues, you will still need to address legacy polarizing topics like immigration, national debt, abortion, the role of religion, the influence of American military power, and the scope of government. The moment you take a stance on these issues, voters will likely decide who to support based on those positions.

I would love to see the CAA get adopted. That would definitely shake things up in a good way I think. And if that were paired with opening up ballot access to third party and independent candidates, that would be very good indeed. Which is why I suspect the two parties will fight both to the bitter end.

Using modern tools and generative AI to better connect, communicate, understand, and ultimately represent constituents is a great idea. I can see lots of potential there. I wonder if the idea took off and became effective, would AI companies update their models to start nudging constituent avatars in the direction of their preferred policies?

With respect to how we should be represented, I think Edmund Burke said it well:

“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Sadly, most of our representatives today regularly neglect their duty of conscience and good judgement for the common good. Parties, presidents, and special interests all tend to take precedence.

Structural changes and technological tools - while very helpful - won’t ultimately solve that problem. Only a change of hearts will.

You’re thinking that the communication system between an elected official and his/her constituents is focused on local issues. That’s not at all what I have in mind. I have opinions on all of the ‘polarizing topics’ you list, as do other constituents, and I want my elected official to represent those opinions authentically.