Democracy by Survey
Mar. 15th, 2006 08:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stickmakerThe United States is a representative democracy. The idea is that most people don't have the time or interest to make a thorough study of all the varied enterprises involved in running a nation. Therefore, we select someone who has knowledge of such enterprises, is adept at working with others of like ability, if familiar with the ins and outs of our particular political institutions, and presumably will represent our interests responsibly.
There are many flaws with this system, of course, but overall it has proven to be fair, flexible and durable. It relies far less on the capability and responsibility of one or a few individuals than most, and has a huge set of checks and balances to prevent assumption of power by the irresponsible or power-hungry. Yes, we occasionally elect a monster or even a doofus, but they generally don't remain in office for long.
However, far too often these days our elected officials don't perform their duties correctly. Because they are primarily interested in staying in office, rather than doing their jobs. That in itself isn't necessarily bad, since to stay in office they must have done at least well enough that people will continue to vote for them, over a replacement. Done correctly, this is simply a form of enlightened self interest. However, many times elected officials fall into the trap of doing what surveys and polls say the people want them to do, rather than taking what they know, from their own experience is the best course, or listening to what people actually tell them they want.
Pollsters, you see, want business. If they give too much bad news to their customers, the customers will go elsewhere. They therefore ask questions deliberately worded to provide a result which pleases the particular customer. Often they speak as the oracles of old, phrasing their results and predictions in ways which allow them to claim validity no matter how things actually turn out.
So you have the case of politicians getting survey results saying exactly what they want to hear. Encouraged, they take action based on those results, have another survey made to measure the results, are again encouraged, and so on, in a cycle of positive reinforcement. They become increasingly out of tune with their constituency, until they're thrown out. Often, their replacements, in an effort to distinguish themselves from their predecessors, will take the opposite course, spurred on by polling results which tell them this is what the public wants, until they also commit in intolerable _faux pas_. And the pendulum swings back the other way.
No wonder liberals and conservatives have become so polarized that neither has any idea what real people actually want them to do.
There are many flaws with this system, of course, but overall it has proven to be fair, flexible and durable. It relies far less on the capability and responsibility of one or a few individuals than most, and has a huge set of checks and balances to prevent assumption of power by the irresponsible or power-hungry. Yes, we occasionally elect a monster or even a doofus, but they generally don't remain in office for long.
However, far too often these days our elected officials don't perform their duties correctly. Because they are primarily interested in staying in office, rather than doing their jobs. That in itself isn't necessarily bad, since to stay in office they must have done at least well enough that people will continue to vote for them, over a replacement. Done correctly, this is simply a form of enlightened self interest. However, many times elected officials fall into the trap of doing what surveys and polls say the people want them to do, rather than taking what they know, from their own experience is the best course, or listening to what people actually tell them they want.
Pollsters, you see, want business. If they give too much bad news to their customers, the customers will go elsewhere. They therefore ask questions deliberately worded to provide a result which pleases the particular customer. Often they speak as the oracles of old, phrasing their results and predictions in ways which allow them to claim validity no matter how things actually turn out.
So you have the case of politicians getting survey results saying exactly what they want to hear. Encouraged, they take action based on those results, have another survey made to measure the results, are again encouraged, and so on, in a cycle of positive reinforcement. They become increasingly out of tune with their constituency, until they're thrown out. Often, their replacements, in an effort to distinguish themselves from their predecessors, will take the opposite course, spurred on by polling results which tell them this is what the public wants, until they also commit in intolerable _faux pas_. And the pendulum swings back the other way.
No wonder liberals and conservatives have become so polarized that neither has any idea what real people actually want them to do.
