What is/should be the democratic contract btw elected representatives and the electorate?

[geordief]

Should our politicians  concern be to just  get reelected?

 

After all they will only get to be reelected if enough voters approve of what they have done  in office.

 

Is it not good enough for them  to just fulfil that commitment,(to be sufficiently  popular)?

 

Do they have to be "better" than the people who voted them in  or it it their highest duty to represent them warts and all?(men of the people or the vanguard  of the people?)

[TheVat]

33 minutes ago, geordief said:

Should our politicians  concern be to just  get reelected?

 

After all they will only get to be reelected if enough voters approve of what they have done  in office.

 

Is it not good enough for them  to just fulfil that commitment,(to be sufficiently  popular)?

 

Do they have to be "better" than the people who voted them in  or it it their highest duty to represent them warts and all?(men of the people or the vanguard  of the people?)

Well, better I think.  Recall the traditional Jeffersonian idea of democracy was that representation was not just a passive reflection of popular wishes but also an exercise of leadership and wisdom, offering people a broad vision and educating them on a range of issues so they can more clearly see what opposed corruption and fostered civic virtue.  This was why Jefferson et al so distrusted aristocracies, which they saw as self serving and prone to corruption.  

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Do they have to be "better" than the people who voted them in  or it it their highest duty to represent them warts and all?

Those warts cause a lot of the trouble, both for politicians and for the people they fail to represent while they're representing the loudest and meanest of their constituency. Of course, the leaders should ideally be chosen from among the best - the smartest, most competent and level-headed. But how are the best to be identified in an egalitarian population? Aristocrats and prelates have proven as warty as peasants and knaves; the middle class as error- and corruption-prone as the upper and lower.

Some other complications intrude, as well: balance of power between interest groups, religion and economics, foreign and domestic relations, men and women, ethnic groups, doves and hawks....

Yes, there should be a simple, enforceable contract. That's the idea behind national constitutions: to lay out the respective obligations of governing entities and the governed. 

But how is that contract made? Who drafts it? Who signs it? Who enforces it?

The administration of a large collective, any kind, is complicated. With contrary, emotional, fickle, fractious, gullible humans, it's labyrinthine. Add superstition, money and outside threats from other collectives, and becomes so difficult that only enormous good will and co-operation can make it work. Amazingly, it sometimes does work, for decades at a time, in whole nations.    

Edited July 31, 2022 by Peterkin

[MigL]

It used to be the case that people ran for office based on their accomplishments, but since the advent of 'attack' ads during elections, more and more people are running for office based on the faults and 'warts' of their adversaries.

Some of us are old enough to remember when being a 'populist' was a good thing.
It meant you represented all people/constituents, even the rabble and 'deplorables', not just the elite who think they know beetter than others. 
The 'new' connotation is vastly different.

If TheVat is correct ( usually is about American Politics and history ) that would mean D Trump governed in the Jeffersonian tradition by "exercising of leadership, offering people a broad vision and educating them on a range of issues so they can more clearly see" ... the craziness. 

Edited July 31, 2022 by MigL

[studiot]

9 hours ago, geordief said:

Should our politicians  concern be to just  get reelected?

 

After all they will only get to be reelected if enough voters approve of what they have done  in office.

 

Is it not good enough for them  to just fulfil that commitment,(to be sufficiently  popular)?

 

Do they have to be "better" than the people who voted them in  or it it their highest duty to represent them warts and all?(men of the people or the vanguard  of the people?)

 

The Game of Thrones finale was an interesting study of this question.

[iNow]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

It used to be the case that people ran for office based on their accomplishments, but since the advent of 'attack' ads during elections, more and more people are running for office based on the faults and 'warts' of their adversaries.

I think the only time this “used to be the case” was before Thomas Jefferson and his allies ran attack ads against John Adams, so basically ONLY true that one time btw the handoff from George Washington to Adams. 

Artack ads aren’t new. Propaganda isn’t new. Even the ability to self-select our own news and information sources (which themselves often push false narratives about opponents like Ben Franklin did) isn’t new.

It’s just supercharged now with social media and the easier ability for foreign adversaries and uber wealthy to play key roles in the conversation. 

12 hours ago, geordief said:

After all they will only get to be reelected if enough voters approve of what they have done  in office.

Not really true (in the US, anyway) once we factor in gerrymandered voting districts and how the electoral college supersedes popular vote for executive office. 

There’s not merely ONE electorate, though. Elected reps only ever represent a fraction of the people, and that fraction isn’t always terribly large. 

[Peterkin]

14 hours ago, geordief said:

After all they will only get to be reelected if enough voters approve of what they have done  in office.

Even without the various fraudulent paractices, the percent of eligible voters who actually elect a candidate by the first-past-the-post system is typically about 30-35%. And that successful candidate will also represent the 20% who are eligible to vote but not registered, plus the under-age, disqualified, recent and undocumented immigrants. Of the registered voters, only 60-70% show up in the polls.  There is a world of difference between "enough" and a majority, and even the enough are as likely, if not more, to vote on the basis of what a candidate promises to do, than what he or she has actually done. (Besides, just how much can any one representative do?)  

[geordief]

33 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Even without the various fraudulent paractices, the percent of eligible voters who actually elect a candidate by the first-past-the-post system is typically about 30-35%. And that successful candidate will also represent the 20% who are eligible to vote but not registered, plus the under-age, disqualified, recent and undocumented immigrants. Of the registered voters, only 60-70% show up in the polls.  There is a world of difference between "enough" and a majority, and even the enough are as likely, if not more, to vote on the basis of what a candidate promises to do, than what he or she has actually done. (Besides, just how much can any one representative do?)  

Do we have any empirical evidence as to which of the different forms of democracy are most  effective in truly representing the population -and which do so without pandering to their "worse"(eye of the beholder and all that) qualities.

For example ,voting is obligatory  in some countries

Does that seem to make a positive difference?(not sure I am enamoured  of the Australian  political system-or the policies  that have been pursued of late)

[Peterkin]

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do we have any empirical evidence as to which of the different forms of democracy are most  effective in truly representing the population -and which do so without pandering to their "worse"(eye of the beholder and all that) qualities.

We statistical measurements of which democracies are working best, according to the criteria set by academics. (very good ones, IMO)

The whole article is worth a close reading.

Quote

The United States scored 7.92 in 2020 and again landed in the "flawed democracy" category, where it has resided since falling from "full democracy" in 2016.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries

As to which is best, results vary. So much depends on the ethnic, cultural and economic makeup of the given popultion, as well its history and how past power dynamics have shaped the voters' and leaders' world-view and the need/mood/volatility of the current environment in which an election takes place. Methods and means of the dissemination of information plays a prominent role and so does the extent to which special interests are allowed to meddle in the form of campaign financing and lobby policies.    https://aceproject.org/epic-en?question=ES005&f=h

Information on what, where and how is readily available, but  best is still largely a matter of opinion.

https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/no-electoral-system-is-perfect-but-some-seem-fairer/