Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:06 AM
One key to remember I think is efficiency. It would be interesting to see things done purely by referendum, but it's highly impractical. The cost of everything would be astronomical. The other to remember is that the fewer people who run things, the more issues and representation of the citizenry gets compromised by having to overburden the politician with so many issues that they can't possibly accurately represent their large riding without arguing with themselves. In that case, it's more of a theoretical activity than anything really practical.
The key in this system is to have so many politicians that the entire population isn't extremely marginalized, while having so few that anything gets done. It's a dangerous balance and I'm not convinced any government has this right.
Ultimately, I'm happy with the way things are done for elections in the developed world.
It is the CITIZEN who votes in the politician. That's the key tenant of our system. The average person has to decide who best fits them and it is within their duty to tell their constituent when they don't agree, whether it be by e-mail, vote or talk. It is the duty of everyone to contact the politician and get them the information they need to make the decision based on what they're being told (I'm actually quite jealous of the US in this one aspect - Canada has a "vote by party lines" unwritten rule, so our politicians will often vote against what they feel is right because their party superiors tell them to). Therefore, it is up to the citizen to vote in the correct politician during elections and find the correct candidate. In situations of no agreement with any candidate, it's a void in which one would find opportunity to get elected and run on a better fitting platform. It is also up to the politician to get details, concerns, and the general baseline from their constituents and weighing the decision instead of just making their own arbitrary decision.
In the US, the main issue I see is low votership, resulting in poorly reflecting politicians. Some politicians step in and lose all connection with their majority constituents. Yet they keep getting electing year in, year out. It's because of two issues: one, that the politician isn't getting the message. They see themselves getting elected from the few who actually bother getting off their ass and voting, and think "gee, I'm doing great!". Second, the majority aren't actually getting their say because they throw away their ballot. I'm a huge fan of the theory that "if you don't vote, you don't get a right to complain". Your vote was firmly placed in the category of "I can't be bothered to care". I say it's still important to vote for the candidate that you think best represents you, even if that candidate has no hope in hell of getting elected.
