Opening Passages to consider:
“The inhabitants of a particular town are much better acquainted with its wants and interests, than with those of other places; and are better judges of the capacity of their neighbours, than of that of the rest of the countrymen. The members, therefore, of the legislature should not be chosen from the general body of the nation; but it is proper that in every considerable place, a representative should be elected by the inhabitants. The great advantage of representatives is their capacity of discussing public affairs. For this the people collectively are extremely unfit, which is one of the chief inconveniences of a democracy.”
1. The above is a selection from the chapter “The Constitution of England” that is NOT in your Ebenstein text. What is your reaction to his assertion?? Where do you think that discussion of public policies best takes place?
“The suffrage by lot is natural to democracy, as that by choice is to aristocracy. The suffrage by lot is a method of electing that offends no one; but animates each citizen with the pleasing hope of serving his country. Yet, as this method is in itself defective, it has been the endeavour of the most eminent legislators to regulate and amend it.” p. 415
2. What do you think about this assertion?--please comment
1. This just makes me think of the American system, where representatives from every state are elected, and regional governments exist along with national governments. Also, I think he's right--the majority of people aren't informed or intelligent enough to make policy decisions (not that those elected are necessarily much beter; however, there's a greater chance that a superior individual will be elected than randomly selected.)
ReplyDelete2. It's a paradox -- the people make the choice, but they can't make a perfect choice, so the people imperfectly chosen try and change the method of election. Who, in the circle of imperfect voters and imperfect elects, can best decide on voting policy? While voters don't make perfect decisions, you can't necessarily allow the system to be changed by a person or group who isn't necessarily better (especially as "better" is a subjective term)
1) I agree with Montesquieu's assertion that the general election of those holding public office should only be allotted to those inhabiting the supervised area. This is, as he states, because local voters and candidates will have a better understanding of pertinent local affairs rather than outside voters. People will then elect candidates who will best serve their needs, needs which could be very different in other parts of the nation.
ReplyDelete2) This quote has a large relation to the first document ever signed in the New World: The Mayflower Compact. This document states that there will be voting, and the majority will rule. MORE importantly, the minority will submit to the majority and wait for the next chance to vote. Montesquieu would see this as a way to offend no one.
1. Montesquieu's assertion that it's better to have representation in different places makes sense-- I agree with the fact that people from a certain town are more in tune with the wants and needs of that particular town. He also says that the this type of representation also has a downside, which is that the people are "extremely unfit" when it comes to discussing public affairs. I'm not sure whether I completely agree with this, because it tends to vary from person to person (not everyone is unfit when it comes to discussing public affairs).
ReplyDelete2. Suffrage is natural to democracy, and although Montesquieu says that it is defective in some ways, I think that suffrage is crucial to the success of a democracy. He's basically saying that it's up to the legislators to "regulate and amend" suffrage, which I think makes sense.
The first assertion made is that it is logical and well-reasoned. The inhabitants of a specific are do have a more complete understanding of that area than someone from another area in the state. The problem that this idea poses is that there may not be a person from a specific are that can be trusted to handle state affairs from the specific area. The discussion of public policies best takes place with each are being represented by a competent person in a larger assembly of the whole state. The people discussing in the assemblies should be representatives with a capacity to discuss public affairs.
ReplyDeleteI think that the second assertion made is not always true. A successful democracy is not dependent on the fact that a large majority suffers under the governments rules. I agree that the legislators have been trying to remedy the suffrage of the majority.
1. When I read this passage, I immediately think of the structure of the American government and more specifically, how we choose (elect) the members of the House and Senate. In our system of government, it is our understanding that those who we elect will use their power in the best interest of the people who inhabit the region they represent. I agree with the English Constitution when it says having the whole democratic body elect representatives is a fundamental inconvenience of democracy. It makes more sense, as is noted, to have people elect representatives from their own areas as to maintain local representation for local concerns. I would have to agree with this idealistic view of government although the practice of such a structure has proved to be difficult.
ReplyDelete2. I think this is a very interesting and rather bold statement. He is saying that granting "everyone" the ability to vote for their leaders is the democratic and therefore the correct method of government. However, he also writes that the system is extremely flawed and it has been the goal of many law-makers to fix the system; his implication is that none have had success thus far, which is again, a pretty bold statement.
I actually think it is pretty interesting how they leave it up to the inhabitants to choose an individual to represent them in the long run. It ties in with the caucuses and the GOP race. It is clear that the Republicans of the fine state of Iowa were stuck between Romney and Santorum but in the end for the state, the inhabitants of the particular region said they would put their vote in Romney. I think that the discussion on public affairs should take place in all sections or regions of the country that the office is being run for. I am a really big defendant of the way caucuses are set up. They allow for public discussions to be done in just about every region.
ReplyDeleteI think it is pretty interesting also because even though everyone ( above 18) is allowed to vote it really does not influence the outcome of the election because it is the electoral college that will basically choose the next president of the US. I think suffrage should be extended to the educated people of the nation voting. Leaving votes in the hands of uneducated will lead to votes going to the front runner or the popular candidate. That will not help anything.I do not know what the extent of that education should be but it should be high.
1. The best discussion of public policies probably takes place in a central location amongst people who have spent time examining the machinations of the society at large. Clearly not every member of a given society can contribute to the discussion of policy. However, it is appropriate to have representatives of each particular region of interest as these people will be able to represent these regions best in their say in the democracy.
ReplyDelete2. To say that suffrage by lot is flawed, is itself a flawed means of thought. This assumes that the democracy should not be absolute democracy, rather weighted democracy is better. I tend to agree with this assertion because of the inequality of information. Montesquieu says that this is the best means of being inoffensive and promoting patriotism, but it is not necessarily the best means of governance - each subject has its experts and those who vote with their stomachs.
This description of a representative system appeals to the common sense. The U.S. follows it, as do a number of other countries, and it is relatively effective. However, obviously there are a number of issues with using it it in such a large country, such as conflict of interests due to regional differences. When compared to the second passage however, it puts the idea in a very empowering light. The second passage from page 415 caste the representative system as something to appease the citizen's hope for a chance at contributing while really minimizing the number of people directly involved
ReplyDelete1. this appears to be the basis of modern democracy, or a democratic republic. he notices that within all sectors there are people that are fit to represent them; however, the vast majority of inhabitants, no mater what particular area they are from, are unfit to represent in a regular democracy.
ReplyDelete2. hypothetically this works; however, i completely disagree with his naiveté mindset. the fact that he said it is a method that offends no one bothers me quite a bit, because no matter what, somebody is bound to disagree, or wish for an alternate form of government.
1. His idea that that the legislature pertains to the state in which he was elected is very similar to how our democracy works today. I agree that the people are not educated enough to make an intelligent decision on who they should elected to represent them. That this also where the discussion of policies take place. The reason why democracy is so inconvenient is because the people are limited to the arguments of their representative.
ReplyDelete2.Here he is saying the suffering in an inevitable part of democracy and the people are dependent on their elected representatives or legislators to mend and regulate that suffrage.
1. Essentially, I agree with Montesquieu's assertion that representation from various regions is a necessity as opposed to pure democracy because location influences opinions and views. As Devon stated this ideology is very similar to that used in the United States. The representation based on states is a model image of Montesquieu's assertion. Due to the limits of location the discussion of public policies in certain regions are limited themselves. This reason itself is why it is necessary to gather the regions as individuals for a more widespread public.
ReplyDelete2. Montesquieu is belittling the minority and ultimately saying that the suffrage comes hand in hand with any democracy. The majority in any community is bound to be happy due to that fact that voting gives them that opportunity. Yes this issue has had attempts to be resolved but I personally find that to be impossible.