Why Representative Democracy Is Dead

Republic doesn't mean what you think it means

Often Americans will insist America ‘isn’t a Democracy, it’s a republic!’ when confronted with the corruption they face, but I think what they mean is it’s a ‘Representative Democracy’, not a direct one.

The distinction is important in order to address the corruption within society. A republic simply means something devoid of a monarch, returned to the public (literally: re-public; to become public again). It is defined by what it lacks; a monarch. It doesn’t comment what sort of political system it uses.

So a dictatorship - like the Nationalists in Spain - could remove a monarchy, have no democracy, and still call itself a republic. Because they removed the monarchy.

To be precise, America is a Constitutional Republic with a Representative Democracy.

A What?

So, it’s Constitutional because it has a Constitution. It’s a Republic because it fought for independence from King George III and won (being returned back to public control). It’s Representative because it has Senators (who represent) and Representatives, and it’s a Representative Democracy as these Representatives are voted in by the majority (a ‘demogogue’).

Now you understand the system, it’s easier to explain where the flaws are and why it’s flawed. America is a specific type of Democracy - like a specific type of car - and the flaws are inherent to the specific type of Democracy America has, and not to all types of Democracy.

You may have even noticed the flaw yourself…

They Don’t Represent Me!

Representatives don’t ever truly represent the people, and this is the giant flaw with the Representative part of Representative Democracy and why it dead. It is the “Representatives” themselves that are the problem. And this isn’t unique to America, all “Representative” models have this issue.

You may be asking though, how did it reach a point where Representatives don’t represent you, and are there any solutions?

Lack of Veto (And Why It Practically Can’t Exist)

Candidates wanting to become “representatives” have the playing field stacked to their advantage. They can lie through their teeth, offer to magically fix everything, say all the “right” words… then get into office and do nothing. A common trope, right?

That’s because once they’re in office, unlike a job you or I would work, where if we misbehaved we’d be fired, they’re in office for a guaranteed term. Which literally means they can misbehave as freely as they want, and even more so if all the other representatives agree not to hold each other to account.

The kneejerk solution people will suggest is ‘recall voting’, but vetoes for representatives can never truly work, because either you have a very effective veto system and nothing gets done or you entrust a politician to maybe, on the slim chance, get something vaguely positive done.

Why wouldn’t the veto work?

Well, imagine you managed to elect a really good anti-corruption representative with a heart of gold. Think of your best politician. Naturally, crooks from all sides will want to use and abuse every system at their disposal to get rid of them.

They’d just keep invoking vetoes, non-stop. Sure, most of them would fail, but it’s a distraction that perpetually wastes the representative’s time. If the representative - and the voters who elected the representative - don’t keep blocking the veto, non-stop, the representative will eventually be removed by veto by default.

That’s a very combat intensive, very inefficient system. It’d completely stall any progress as all sides would keep using it.

What about veto on bills?

A number of systems have this, but they don’t work either. They often rely on other representatives, usually from the same party to veto their own members. So it is practically never invoked.

When it is invoked, it’s usually a small impedance as a super-majority of the same lockstep “representatives” all re-vote it again overriding the veto. All it acts is an arbitrary threshold that delays an outcome, but not by much.

Well, what about courts veto?

Courts are a problem too, as they’re often the unelected representatives’ representatives (a representative meta), and they will often veto in-line with a party’s views. If they go rogue they get replaced or overridden by other judges in an endless judge-overriding-judge meta that wastes time.

So there’s no way to meaningfully veto a representative?

Correct, which is a major part why Representative Democracy is dead, but wait, there’s more…

Politicians’ Personalities

You’d probably agree most politicians don’t have good moral fibre. Even if you pick a politician whose policies, somehow, agree with your own, it will be implemented according to the personality of the politician.

Lets say, you wanted to lower healthcare costs. I think it’s a goal most people (besides the pharmaceutical lobby) would agree to. And there’s a politician who will represent the policy.

There’s an endless number of personality flaws the representative can possess. They can be an idiot, with no idea how to implement the technical specifications. They can be an asshole, so they annoy everyone and alienate them meaning no-one works with them. The could be lazy and unmotivated to implement it. They might be terrible at everything else and thus not have the money to do so. Vague. Imprecise. Immoral. Forgetful. Mentally ill. Deluded. Selfish. Aggressive. Even ironically corrupt to the point they get removed from their job.

On and on, there’s endless possibilities of a personality flaw that could tank an entire policy. Often, representatives will have multiple of these flaws.

Representatives are not engineers

If you wanted to build a bridge, you’d consult with a bridge engineering firm for advice. You’d learn how bridges are built, what they cost, heck, you might even go on to get an engineering degree in building bridges.

A representative who wants to build a bridge, is not a bridge engineer. Nor are they a healthcare professional when it comes to health. Nor are they a weapons expert when it comes to guns. Nor military when it comes to war. Representatives get their power by being charismatic, not talented.

This means, they are the least qualified to solve any problem besides how to win an election.

Slightly smarter representatives might try to hire bridge engineers to advise them, but they have no idea if that advice is accurate, deceitful, corrupt, misleading. The bridge engineers might try to exploit this, to overcharge them.

Less original thinkers might suggest to elect bridge engineers directly. But they may still have the same personality flaws - including being corrupt (in the same way pharmaceutical CEOs don’t give the public the best deals on pharmaceutical products, but instead use it to benefit themselves).

But a bridge engineer is only specialist in one field. They might be no good on managing finances, how to overcome obstacles, how to pitch their proposal to the public. Often specialists tend to be worse because they only grasp their narrow, specialist field (ruling out a meritocracy system). Running a government requires a *slew* of skills, and moral integrity.

The Perfect Representative Wouldn’t Work Anyway

This will blow your mind, and blows open why Representative Democracy is dead.

The Perfect Representative would still fail in this system.

Imagine a Representative who has morals, never lies, never cheats, never steals, and they are the most knowledgeable, experienced in all fields, theoretical and practical. They know a con when they see one, they cannot be fooled for a second, they will die before they put the public at risk, they love animals, care for the environment, and aren’t a tyrant.

A democratic system is full of people who hold opinions on all topics. Lets say our Perfect Representative wants to build a road. He has the cheapest price for it. It will last a long time. He’s got it all figured out, right?

You cannot please all of the people all of the time

Enter the public: you’ve got environmentalists who don’t want the environment destroyed for the road, you have parents who don’t want the noise to disturb their houses, you have pro-road users who want the road as big as possible, you have taxpayers who want it as cheap as possible, you have pro-safety members who want the road as safe as possible (which means it will cost more), you have people who want it paid for by taxes, and other people who want it paid for by toll booths. Then there are people, maybe you, who insist other people here should be ignored for ‘the greater good’. Ignore the environmentists. Ignore the car drivers.

There is no choice the Perfect Representative can make in that scenario that will please everybody. Someone is going to lose out. If he improves safety he raises the cost enraging the taxpayers. If he builds through homes he upsets home developers, and if he builds through forest he upsets environmentalists. If he makes the road smaller he pisses off the pro-road users who have to deal with traffic, and if he makes it larger he pisses off the taxpayers (as it costs more), the people upset by the noise and the safety campaigners.

The representative cannot ever truly represent people. The representative must always pick and choose who they appease. And the choice is arbitrary, subjective. Representatives can never represent you. It is physically impossible for them to do so.

So, Representative Democracy is dead, it is a failed experiment.

So, what’s the solution?

This isn’t some depressing pill to swallow where there’s a bad ending. There is a solution, but to recognise the value of the solution you have to see what the specific problems are, and why other “solutions” to that problem won’t work.

You have to abolish representatives entirely. No-one, and I mean no-one, can represent your own interests better than you. No-one cares more, no-one knows more, no-one is motivated as such.

It isn’t sufficient to have the input of just one person on a project. You need the input of a great many people. The mistake in “Representational Democracy” is the votes are voiceless; they cannot tell a representative what to do or how to run a country, and a representative cannot meaningfully choose without always upsetting some people.

Public Expectations Must Be Tempered

You probably looked at the road example and realised everyone there needs to get together and hammer out a compromise that means no one group is too badly affected.

But to do that, the public have to experience governance for themselves, directly. The public themselves must gain that experience. It is not something they can just be told. Representatives become scapegoats for the public; if it succeeds, it was because the public were so heroic. If it fails, it was because the evil representative was stupid and inept and corrupt. It doesn’t matter if it is literally impossible.

People don’t want to drink oil pollution from the Gulf of Mexico, but they don’t want to give up oil usage either. People don’t want China to use child slavery, but they won’t buy expensive goods that are made domestically. People don’t want non-stop proxy wars, but they keep joining up and serving the military, selling weapons and paying military taxes.

The Representative Democray model must be abolished, a mirror created that allows the public to reflect upon their own deeds directly, and to rectify them directly too.

It is called Constitutional Direct Democracy. And I will talk about what this model is, and why it is the correct solution for the messes people are experiencing currently.

If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter. Thank you!