Representative Government Is Fiction

If we really live under a representative government, how can a president take the country to war in Syria without even a show vote in Congress?

White House/Instagram

"The success of government…," the late historian Edmund Morgan wrote, "requires the acceptance of fictions, requires the willing suspension of disbelief, requires us to believe that the emperor is clothed even though we can see that he is not." Representation is chief among those fictions.

"Just as the exaltation of the king could be a means of controlling him," Morgan continued, "so the exaltation of the people can be a means of controlling them…. If the representative consented, his constituents had to make believe that they had done so."

Questioning the authenticity of representative government may seem beyond the pale in America. But occasionally the veil slips, and we glimpse reality. If we really live under a representative government, how can a president take the country to war without even a show vote in Congress, much less a referendum? (The proposed Ludlow Amendment to the Constitution would have required a referendum on war.)

Barack Obama has announced he is sending special operations forces into Syria to help those fighting both the government of Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State, just as last year he ordered airstrikes in Syria. He previously said he would not send ground forces, but you can forget about that now. After a Delta Force soldier was killed there while on a raid last month, Secretary of War Ash Carter acknowledged that Americans will be at risk. Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said, "The norm is not going out in raids. I'm obviously not going to rule anything out."

Note well: the U.S. Congress has not declared war on Syria (nor should it), so Obama's moves are unconstitutional and illegal. Last year Obama asked Congress for an "authorization for the use of military force" (AUMF)—it went nowhere and is going nowhere—while insisting he did not need it. The administration (echoing George W. Bush) says any president has the inherent power under the Constitution to do what he's doing in Syria. (Compare with candidate Obama.)

The Obama administration first suggested the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002 were sufficient, but that claim was demolished (though Obama sticks to it). The 2001 AUMF said Bush could attack al-Qaeda and its associates. Neither Assad nor the Islamic State qualifies: al-Qaeda's Syrian franchise, al-Nusra Front, is also trying to overthrow Assad, and the Islamic State emerged from a split in al-Qaeda. The 2002 AUMF was aimed at Iraqi president Saddam Hussein—it could hardly apply to Syria.

More fundamentally, an AUMF is not a declaration of war; it's a blank-check, unconstitutional delegation of power from Congress to a president. Consider the 2002 AUMF. As I wrote back then:

The resolution would authorize Mr. Bush to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security interests of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and 2) to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The key phrase is "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." It would be consistent with the resolution for Mr. Bush to decide that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to use force against Iraq at all. 

In other words, the Congress is not declaring that a state of war exists between Iraq and the United States. On the contrary, the President will decide when and if a state of war exists. The resolution requires only that he "certify" that diplomatic efforts have failed before he uses force. Indeed, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt confirmed that Congress will not be declaring war when he said, "we should deal with it [the Iraqi problem] diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must. And I think this resolution does that."

Orwellian war-denial is nothing new for the Obama administration. Obama refused to call the 2011 regime-changing air campaign in Libya a war; thus he dismissed the War Powers Resolution as irrelevant. (That 1973 measure was Congress's feeble attempt to rein in de facto presidential power to make war and rectify the constitutional usurpation that began with Harry Truman's "police action" in Korea in 1950.)

Going to war is the most consequential step a government can take. If the people have nothing to say about war ex ante, the government can hardly be described as representative.

This piece originally appeared on Richman's "Free Association" blog. 

Comments

[Arch Stanton]

Our elected representatives have weighed in on the authorization of force in Syria. In one loud voice, they have declared that they will take no responsibility in the decision to use our not use force. In one loud bipartisan voice, they have declared that they will defer to the President. Or representatives have shown themselves to be the cowardly pond scum that we know they are.

[brian0918]

"Our representatives have shown themselves to be the cowardly pond scum that we know they are."

Hell, for most of them, that was the defining characteristic that got them elected.

[Loki]

Or representatives have shown themselves to be the cowardly pond scum that we know they are.

That's an insult to cowardly pond scum.

[DevilDocNowCiv]

Loki,

Even if the pond scum issue wasn't pressing, lack congressional backbone might be representative. Most Americans are not that interested unless it hits the non-Fox news as something they should worry about, and the current comedy-news presenter on the Daily show says its a problem (for the millennial undecided). The more conservative-the Fox viewers-are more likely to approve war or warlike actions.

This country has a strong appetite for and tolerance for war, and warlike actions short of war. This goes back to the start of the country, and up to today. Religious and nonreligious movements have objected to one or another war. Most are always fairly indifferent unless pushed in one direction or another by a big effort. Even then, a perception of some enemy attacking us in some way, or acting like they want to, is enough to turn opinion.

Just look at how Wilson got elected partly by promising "not to send our boys to fight a European war." Look more recently; Bush pushed his successful surge in Iraq when it was unpopular, and by making simple TV speech, got an uptick of approval. If "O" did the same, he could crush ISIS over the space of several months.

[Rockabilly]

This is the opening for the GOP to impeach Obama but no takers. It shows me that they give a rat's ass about the US Constitution and limited government with checks and balances.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

^^THIS^^

[rocks]

Why impeach him now? What does it gain? The guy has less than a year left with a hostile congress. Impeaching him now will only make it easy to attack the red team for the next 300 years for impeaching the first black president.

[Matt L.]

Maybe because it's an actual impeachable offense. And perhaps it's also an opportunity for Congress to take its authority back and stop passing it on to the president at every opportunity.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Because it is the right thing to do. Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama ALL have deserved impeachment for war powers overreach. I'm sorry that we can't impeach them retroactively. But Obama appears to be a multiple offender and so if the Congress doesn't discipline him, what will it take for them to act? Precedent must be RE-established for congressional exclusivity of the power to take us into war, and when better to start now, before a new President is elected and starts to feel his or her oats? Put the next President on notice NOW that the Congress has teeth and will jealously guard its authorized territory as the framers of the Constitution expected!

[Michael Price]

And if they did it would be massively hypocritical since they had no problem with Presidents using force whenever they wanted to when it was their guy.

Not say Obombya doesn't deserve it though.

[Win Bear]

"Representative government" doesn't mean "government that is representative of the opinions of the people" (effectively majoritarianism), it means "government by chosen representatives", representatives who are supposed to look into issues and then make informed decisions.

Now, that system has numerous problems, foremost that our representatives tend to abuse their power and independence for personal gain. But majoritarianism is far worse.

In fact, libertarian government is primarily about enforcing people's basic negative rights. Negative rights shouldn't be subject to public preferences or polls. And the massive expansion of positive rights we have experienced is primarily due to the will of the majority.

[contrarian]

+1 tyrannical mob

[Intraveneous Woodchipper]

Thank you. The author of the above article somehow failed to understand this point.

[James Anderson Merritt]

I agree, but we have also lost "representative government" in the sense that the representatives chosen do NOT, in many cases, have the proper consent and confidence of their constituents. Politicians gerrymander and play with the electoral rules to choose their voters, rather than the other way around. In addition, the constituencies are so large that, absent any other, compelling distinction, any particular constituent voice is guaranteed to be negligible, lost below the noise floor. Not only should we choose and have "representatives," but those officials should properly "represent" their districts and their constituencies.Either way you look at it, representative government is failing, and the people must act to fight that trend.

[ThomasD]

The line between obtuse and willfully obtuse is not a fine one. Richman understands the distinction, he simply chooses to ignore it when convenient.

In that sense he is as guilty of the same behavior as Obama.

[Win Bear]

To elaborate on this: the war in Syria would be wrong even if Congress approved it and even if it was popular, because it is violates the rights of several groups of people. Morality and constitutionality can't be decided by voting.

[ace_m82]

Tell that to the 16th-18th amendments...

[The Grinch]

Representative government isn't a fiction, the assertion that we currently have one is. As long as people are willing to put up with the current status quo, nothing will change.

[Free Society]

It is a fiction. Democratic ideology is the status quo, it's how policies, laws, taxes, murderers and politicians wrap themselves in legitimacy. All while being a morally and functionally deficient system.

[sarcasmic]

Representative government is indeed a fiction. The only people politicians represent is themselves. The only interests they pursue are their own. They claim representation means that whatever they do is the will of the people, just as the kings of old claimed that God gave them a divine right to rule as they pleased. Only the costumes have changed.

[The Grinch]

Representative government can and will exist and thrive when the people hold their representatives accountable for their actions (and inactions) and they vote accordingly. Unfortunately, too many of them are too ignorant and/or apathetic to effectively do so.

As it stands now, though, you're correct: representative government doesn't exist-at least in the good old US of A.

[Free Society]

And in all the time before "representative government" taxes were never higher than under democracy, nor were wars as destructive and total, nor was central banking enshrined in law, nor were regulatory regimes so onerous and nor was a government's ability to produce new laws so unrestricted.

I shudder to think of the hellscape that would be our society if "representative government" gets any more "representative".

[The Grinch]

I'd just say don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. Without representative government, things would be, and the way things are going now will be, much worse.

[Free Society]

"Representative government" is not good enough.

[Trshmnstr, terror of the trash]

Without representative government, things would be, and the way things are going now will be, much worse.

I don't buy into the "people are generally good" sentiment behind this. All people are tyrants, given the chance, and that's why government is tyrannical.

[Vampire]

"Without representative government, things would be, and the way things are going now will be, much worse."

This is unfounded, yet people still regurgitate this nonsense. When "representative government" isn't involved in various areas of the market, they flourish without the "chaos" you imply there would be without these "top men" in charge.

[sarcasmic]

So what if voters vote people out of office? While they're in office they can still do whatever they want. And they do. It's the nature of the kind of person who seeks power. That's the libertarian conundrum: Those who seeks power should have it, and the people who could be trusted with it don't want it.

[sarcasmic]

*shouldn't*

[Mindyourbusiness]

Sarcasmic, you are right. As proof, Exhibit A is the current crop of presidential candidates. The vast majority of them would try to impose their political philosophy on all of us, claiming a "mandate" from "the people" - regardless of whether "the people" wish it or not. But where do we find a Cincinnatus - or a Washington - who doesn't seek power for its own sake?

[sarcasmic]

But where do we find a Cincinnatus - or a Washington - who doesn't seek power for its own sake?

The senior senator from my state initially ran as a two term candidate. You know, like politicians in the olden days. She is currently serving her third term.

[Free Society]

I see no conundrum. No one has a right to that kind of power and therefore no one should have it.

[sarcasmic]

The conundrum is how do you reduce the size and scope of government when people who might actually do that will not seek office.

[Free Society]

Build a system of governance that doesn't select for the wrong kind of people. This is like the conundrum of how do you train your dog to survive on a diet of poison when the dogs who do that will die. It's pointless to try and solve it if a living dog is your goal.

[MichaelL]

Or they are imperfect people, like most of us. I would not survive a vetting, even though I think of myself as an upstanding person. Funny thing is. I was a physician who really enjoyed helping people! No matter what you do, there will be some group that thinks you are what sets in the bottom of the toilet!

[Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair]

Votes do not hold representatives accountable, at least in any government I have heard of. One vote every two or four years is meaningless. It allegedly stands for everything, which is ridiculous. Imagine if you had to do ALL your shopping at one single store, and only got to choose among two offerings every two or four years. Or more realistically, you got to vote for representatives to run that store.

To call that accountable is a crude joke.

[mtrueman]

"The only interests they pursue are their own."

This will be news to those who come up with the hundreds of millions of $US necessary to put these politicians into office.

[See Double You]

Which in no way contradicts what he said. One can serve one's interests while serving another's.

[mtrueman]

"One can serve one's interests while serving another's."

I think you should brush up on basic reading skills. Sarcasmic clearly stated: "The only interests they pursue are their own". This is incorrect. They also pursue the interests of those who've given them large amounts of money. It's called quid pro quo.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Well, it's in their interests to keep getting the large amounts of money, so there's that.

[ThomasD]

Wait, when the people of Kentucky recently rose up and said "no thanks" to the status quo another author on this site tried to tell us it was signs of a crisis.

This is all sooo confusing....

[onebornfree]

Live Free[er]?

Dear Reason reader,

One of the most freedom- damaging beliefs you can have is the belief in the necessity, and the effectiveness, of political involvement - to supposedly "improve" your own life and the lives of others .

Fact: as an individual you will _never_ enjoy a freer life for yourself until you completely see through/ reject the "drug", "religion" [ or whatever else you want to call it] known as "political activism" or "involvement", in its entirety.
I can help with that.

Regards, onebornfree.
Personal Freedom Consulting:
http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com

[Animal]

Fuck off, spammer.

[toolkien]

We are living with the lack of vigilance for liberty in 1913. The government hasn't had to go "back to the people" in any tangible way since they could tax or print any money they wanted to do whatever they wanted. The only power any individual has (such as it is) is to refuse to pay taxes. Of course we know what will result from that.

The Washington Monument stands as a testament to how far we have come from a Federal government held in its place to SOME degree. No, not the monument itself - that Washington would have abhorred - but the fact that it has that two-tone coloration. When the narcissists decided to build the obelisk THEY RAN OUT OF MONEY and by the time they got back to the task, the quarry from which the materials was mined had used and a slightly different color was on hand. THEY RAN OUT OF MONEY and had to stop building a toy for themselves. Now, they can do as the please, take what they want (because we didn't make that), feel so beneficent when they let us keep some of labor for ourselves, and then set about debasing what they've left to us.

[Intraveneous Woodchipper]

Agreed that Washington would have disapproved of "his" monument on several levels.

[Suicidy]

Imagine the monument that Obama will commission in his own honor.

[Mickey Rat]

Constitutions are bulwarks against governmental abuse as long as someone is willing to man them and the political class is somewhat concerned about the appearance of integrity. Right now, we have created a culture where winning is more important than how victory is achieved. No one has exemplified this than Obama to whom the Constitution and the letter of the law he supported is little better than suggestionwhen it unconvinced what he wants in the moment

[psCargile]

Better do as the Furher says, or the SS media while decry you a racist.

[SimonJester]

Man, you can say that again.

[Akira]

As bad as President Ben Carson would be, I would be giddy at the opportunity to finally fire back at Obamabots with their "you can't handle a strong black president" line.

[psCargile]

Better do as the Furher says, or the SS media while decry you a racist.

[sarcasmic]

He has the divine right of the king the will of the people handed down to him by God Representation

[Free Society]

"Divine right of the king" just doesn't let you bully and tax your people nearly as well as when you use "representation" as your source of legitimacy.

[sarcasmic]

That doesn't refute my point.

[Free Society]

Why do you think I was trying to refute your point? It's possible that sometimes people might agree with you.

[ThomasD]

You can say that again.

[Free Society]

Why do you think I was trying to refute your point? It's possible that sometimes people might agree with you.

[James Anderson Merritt]

"Vox dei, vox populi," a concept that has been known and used for millennia.

[onebornfree]

Government is a top to bottom fraud, a criminal scam, no more, no less.

That means _all_ of it : the president, congress,the constitution, the bill of rights, the supreme court, the FBI, the Fed, the cops and the courts.

Always have been, always will be.

A fraud/scam cannot be "reformed". It's like putting lipstick on a pig. A waste of time.

However, I'm betting that for most here, as elsewhere:

"In In your dreams the constitution was not a scam,"
In your dreams, the supreme court is not a scam"
In your dreams, the FBI is not a scam"
"In your dreams the cops and the courts are not a scam,"
"In your dreams 9/11 was not a scam,"
In your dreams, welfare is not a scam.........."

......And so on and so forth, ad infinitum 🙂 .

Quotes from: "Dreams[ Hormegeddon Blues]":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk

Regards, onebornfree.
Personal Freedom consulting:
http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com

[Aloysious]

Pirate Truther sings the blues.

[buybuydandavis]

Wow an article by Sheldon that isn't complete idiocy.

He's actually got a point. But 50 guys with guns does not make an arm sending them somewhere make a war.

More telling long the lines of the lack of representative government is the fact that the Congressional Budget has been running on continuing resolutions for most of the Obama administration, which cuts out the vast majority of the people's representatives from the budget making process.

[retiredfire]

NO, this, and all the support for it, IS complete idiocy.
Representative government is our Congress, who is given certain powers by the Constitution - Article 1, Section 8 - and specifically prohibited from doing certain things - Article 1, Section 9.
The president is the Commander in Chief of the military. He can send them to do whatever he wants.
Sure Congress gets to declare war, but that is rare. AUMF's aren't mentioned in the Constitution but they are a way for Congress to say, "Yes, we will fund your actions". What would happen if Congress declared war and the president said "Um, no"? Congress can't order any troops anywhere. The reverse is true, however.
Congress only gets to decide if they will fund, and we all know what happens to Congresscritters, who leave our brave boys out there, with no bullets, because they refused to pay for them.
So, Congress whines and moans that they have to authorize military action, when the Constitution grants them no such power. The real problem is they are too chickenshit to say, "Uh uh, we ain't payin' for that".
I'm no fan of Oblama but he is acting within his Constitutional powers, and Congress has the power of the purse or the power of impeachment and removal from office, on conviction.
Those are all they have.
Get used to it.

[ThomasD]

" What would happen if Congress declared war and the president said "Um, no"? "

Impeachment should follow.

But, much like a declaration of war (which is what an 'AUMF' or whatever other euphemism they cook up is) it is an inherently political action.

Congress (ideally) should treat every one of it's actions with the same degree of import - i.e. is it really worth impeachment if the executive refuses to execute? Because if Congress is not willing to go the full measure then they are in no position to demand any else do so in their stead.

Congress could rein in an adventurous POTUS through the power of the purse, that they do not is really more a matter of that lack of will, but practically and legally speaking it amounts to tacit acceptance, and therefore is indeed representative.

[EscherEnigma]

Y'know, a president committing troops to an undeclared war really isn't that shocking.

Do you know what would be shocking? Congress passing a defense authorization bill that said no troops (air, ground or sea, manned or unmanned) would be committed to any aggressive action without Congressional approval.

Also what would be shocking is Congress passing a war tax to fund our foreign troop actions instead of just expecting the rest of the budget to eat the cost.

As to the "Representative government myth"... sorry, but we *are* a representative government. We are *not* a democracy. And our duly elected representatives have long been happy with the status quo: the president gets a rather expansive (and expanding) list of powers, and congress lets him (and maybe someday her) get away with it, because congress doesn't like taking the blame for the big decisions.

I mean hell, look at how every member of congress that voted for the Iraq war has had to defend that vote years later? No sitting member of congress wants to be in that same spot. So they'd rather let the president do his thing without their input then risk having an albatross vote around their neck if it goes sideways.

[dpbisme]

What a silly article... One must assume that the author did not know that the President is the Commander in Chief. It is with in his perview to send the military to to defend America's intrests (even if you do not agree that it is in America's Intrest).

Obamacare would be a better example considering most of the public is against the law and it was passed by the New Socialist Party (AKA:the Democrats). That was an example of ONE PARTY RULE.

Then the Executive orders are another good example... but not sending troops to the Middle East

[The Grinch]

If Russia sent a fifty man Spetznaz unit here to train the Crips, wouldn't that be a de facto declaration of war? Like it or not, ISIS is a nascent Mideast state and sending troops against them, whether 50 or 50K, is an act of war and should be treated that way. The President should only act without the consent of Congress when time is of the essence and awaiting a formal declaration or a formal abdication of that power isn't feasible.

[Intraveneous Woodchipper]

Sounds like a fantastic premise for an fx tv series lol

[Suicidy]

Why? Given that most of the people here believe in a border less US, with interactions based on free association, why would there be anything wrong with that? Russians should be able to come here at will, right? And if they contract with the crips for paramilitary training, it's ok because it's consensual, right?

I mean, I know it isn't. But based on some of the mindless unrestricted immigration bulkshit arguments I read, I would think that most folks here would have no issue with your scenario.

[Harun]

ISIS is Al Qaeda. Nobody would demand a second declaration of war if the Germans had split with Italians over doctrine, and the Neo-Fascists took over Italy.

These guys have a never-ending set of new names, fronts, brigades, battallions, jihads, and armies.

the Assad argument is better.

[ThomasD]

Strangely enough about the only legal scholar making that same argument is John Yoo.

Which must really chap Obama's ass.

[DonRitchie]

Representative government is working fine, in this case.

While few would cast an affirmative vote for war in Syria, no one really cares if we do this. Certainly, no Congressman is going to lose a vote because they didn't demand a vote on Syria.

Americans are pretty oblivious.

[muskegonlibertarian]

To have actual "Representative Government" would require changing our form of government. The Greeks of Classical Athens had a system of using a "lottery" to select which citizens would serve as representatives. This is in truth the only true democratic form of government. What we have today is an oligarchy where the few through their donations to their favored politicians effectively decide who gets elected and who doesn't. Another alternative is the parliamentary form of government where effectively the legislature and the executive are "one" in that the Prime Minister serves at the wish of the parliament. Note that in parliamentary systems there is generally several political parties representing differing viewpoints who have to work together to get things done.

From the viewpoint of the wealthy and corporate America we likely have the "best" system so far as they are concerned. From the standpoint of the American people as a whole, the lottery system would probably be better at least for some issues, although public prejudice might be an issue, especially without the "protection" of a Constitution that would serve to protect the minority from the majority.

Another possible "solution" would be to take away a lot of the federal government's power and turn these over to the states. Those who disliked what their state government does can always relocate to another state.

[Vampire]

Another possible "solution" would be to take away a lot of the federal government's power and turn these over to the states Individual.

There, your "solution" of force, coercion and ultimately slavery has been tried enough already.

[John B. Egan]

All Presidents involve us in conflict and mostly without Congress's approval. IMO, the 50 advisors we're sending to Syria is minimal and nothing like what prior presidents on both sides of the political spectrum have done. Look at the illegal intrusions into Laos and Cambodia by Johnson for example, and during the Reagan administration, from 1981 to 1988, American forces were active on overseas missions 16 times in a total of 12 countries.

Although the act of war lies constitutionally with Congress, only five wars have been declared by Congress under their constitutional power to do so: the War of 1812, the Mexican?American War, the Spanish?American War, World War I, and World War II. In essence, Congress has ceded its authority to declare war, and the presidency has usurped that power.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Well yes, you have described what has happened. But what can or should we do to fix that? Or is it your position that so much power in the hands of the Executive is a GOOD thing? There are clearly those in our government (and on Main Street, throughout the land) who think that way. I, however, am not one of them.

[EscherEnigma]

What can we do?

Plenty, but as we are a republic, they pretty much all come down to "electing representatives willing to do something about it".

But have no illusion: there's plenty that congress could do about executive overreach if congress wanted to. But congress represents the people, and the people by-and-large are apathetic about it.

So I suppose the simplest answer to your question of what can be done: make enough people care, and the rest will flow from that. But as of now, most people don't actually care.

[James Anderson Merritt]

The United States is unique among nations by not being established primarily through language, ethnicity, or ancestral territory. Instead, it is a cultural phenomenon: the product of the ideological ideal of liberty for all and the respect for and protection of personal rights, which all Americans have traditionally shared. We dreamed this nation into existence and have defended that dream with blood and treasure on numerous occasions. So that dream -- including its many aspects, such as representative government -- is fiction in the literal sense. But it is a fiction that we not only act out, but we MUST act out, every day, all the time, in order to maintain not just the health, but the reality, of our nation.

Our Constitution provides the broad brushstrokes for the visualization and realization of our shared dream. When someone in our government goes against the Constitution, WE THE DREAMERS must ACT to bring that person and his or her actions into harmony with the Constitution, or we must eject the offender from the process and repair any damage. If WE THE DREAMERS do not act, the process and the system will not fix themselves, and are certainly not guaranteed to deliver justice to the offender.

If we want to preserve representative government, we have to act in support of that idea. What will we do?

[Vampire]

Why preserve something that' a disaster? Would you like someone to make you relive a horrid disease by injecting it into you over and over again?

[Rockabilly]

I was browsing on Al Gore's internets when I came upon this

http://www.thesleuthjournal.co.....-politics/

I gotta get me one

[Diversionary Maenad]

A few thoughts on this-
Can we truly say we have representative government when such a teeny fraction of the population votes/participates in government? And on top of that, doesn't Congress' absolvement of it's own authority / complacency regarding an aggressive foreign policy and the low rate of turnover for congress members simply reflect the public's overall effective complacency and acceptance of the status quo? Are we stuck with this crap?

[ThomasD]

"Can we truly say we have representative government when such a teeny fraction of the population votes/participates in government?"

Yes, because anything else would require compulsion, so while it might not be theoretically ideal, it is a practical ideal.

[Diversionary Maenad]

Forcing people to vote is a bad idea, but low participation is a problem and perhaps doesn't have to be resolved by compulsion. For example, the voter turnout from state-to-state and in other countries differs and the factors that explain these differences aren't associated with more or less compulsion to vote. Maybe some negative factors can be changed if people objectively assessed what they were.

Anywho, I'm thinking that representation necessarily implies that only those who participate in choosing the representative are actually represented. For instance- people convicted of certain crimes CAN'T vote, so government isn't representative of them and legislates for them paternalistically but not with their consent. Ultimately, regardless of the circumstances (apathy / access / disenfranchisement etc), individuals who do not vote aren't represented. So even if we have the "setup" for rep. gov., we don't actually have one.

[ThomasD]

I can't wait to see Hillary on MSNBC and them asking about her seances.

[MarisolMoore]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

---------- http://www.4cyberworks.com

[voluntaryist]

The unwarrented(unproven) assumption justifying govt. is that others can protect us better than we can protect ourselves. The fact that this assumption has not been successfully defended, and it never worked, does not deter a majority from forcing it on everyone. The most popular excuse for continuing to insist on centralized control by institutionalized violence is that it is better than chaos. This ignores that govt. breeds chaos and nothing else. It denies the choice of decentralized self governance.

[Vampire]

This^^^^