07-06-2010, 07:01 PM
What is "the constituency"? The individual? The county? The state? The United States? Humanity? How about the demographics that voted for you? The interests that funded your campaign? Your religion? Your ethnic group? Your gender? Sexual orientation? Every level creates new and *contradictory* demands, both on the voter and the representative. If our politics is complicated, it's because it serves a complicated master - "the people," who are every bit as diverse and confused as ever. Increasing the responsiveness of politics to "the people" might be a positive step, but it certainly isn't going to eradicate the selfishness of individuals, groups, cities, states, or countries.
There is no way to govern a country which is pareto-optimal, or at least, none that I understand. (Even if their was, there are still distributional struggles.) Every set of laws involves a distribution of power and wealth, and every constituency (in all senses) is jockeying for more. To which meaning of the word "constituency" is the representative beholden? If a project is bad for the country, but good for their region, should they vote for it, or against it? If there is an alternate project, better for the country, but devastating for the people who elected them, should they vote for it, or against it? What about the current generation, vs. future generations?
People tend very strongly to elect people who defend *their* interests. Not those of their neighbour, not those of the city or state next door, seldom those of the whole country, and almost never those of the whole species. And yet, it is the last category I am interested in politicians serving.
-Jester
There is no way to govern a country which is pareto-optimal, or at least, none that I understand. (Even if their was, there are still distributional struggles.) Every set of laws involves a distribution of power and wealth, and every constituency (in all senses) is jockeying for more. To which meaning of the word "constituency" is the representative beholden? If a project is bad for the country, but good for their region, should they vote for it, or against it? If there is an alternate project, better for the country, but devastating for the people who elected them, should they vote for it, or against it? What about the current generation, vs. future generations?
People tend very strongly to elect people who defend *their* interests. Not those of their neighbour, not those of the city or state next door, seldom those of the whole country, and almost never those of the whole species. And yet, it is the last category I am interested in politicians serving.
-Jester