Why would “representatives” have a better understanding of what their constituents value that the constituents themselves have? Is a representative-constituent relationship supposed to be like a parent-toddler relationship? And who makes sure that the representatives “understand”? Their constituents? Seems rather circular, no? Representatives understand better than constituents who in turn understand better than representatives…?
I don’t value public education, and will concede that perhaps it’s because I don’t understand it.
The Suburbanist
502

The representative is not supposed to know better than their constituents. They are supposed to know the issues and to ALSO know what their constituents tell them they (the constituents) want. So, when decisions need to be made at the State and Federal Level there is an ability to debate pros and cons in an informed manner.

Since it is not possible for everyone to be fully informed on every issue, while also living their own lives. It is the ‘job’ of the representative to be informed on all matters that impact their constituents. The trouble is that money gets into the process and corrupts it. So instead of listening to their constituents they listen to the ‘market’… namely the money they are offered or jobs they are offered to protect the interests of those with the money.

The trouble is that the system is corrupted.

But so are all human systems.

It is how we make the best of it.

We need a combination of direct democracy and enlightened guidance that is transparent. So it is clear that there is no conflict of interest.

I’m not fighting what you say, only suggesting that there is no ‘pure’ solution.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.