"Problems arising from terms of office"

[dsernst]

• [x] get first draft ready for wider publication

[dsernst]

First draft by Warren Ernst:

For citizens concerned about issues, one problem that arises in representative democracy is the episodic nature of elections and the myriad of issues faced by a legislature during a term.

At the time of any particular election, the candidates may make clear to voters their positions on the issues of the day, the issues in the news at the time of the campaign for votes. Many voters will choose among the candidates based upon those stated positions, seeking a candidate whose positions most align with that of the voter. Of course, there may be less than full agreement -- for example, a particular candidate may exactly align with the voter as to fiscal matters, but diverge when it comes to social issues.

So there is an immediate dilemma for the careful voter: which issues, which congruences with a candidate, matter most, and which divergences of position can be set aside in order to choose a candidate? This dilemma is inherent in representative democracy, as it is highly unlikely that a voter will agree on all the issues of the day with a particular candidate.

But over time, during a term of office, what started as a dilemma able to be considered by the thoughtful voter can become a real problem. After all, over time, facts will change that may lead to a different conclusion as to a known issue. For example, at the time of an election a candidate may, answering a theoretical question, state that she or he is against military intervention in far-off lands when American lives are not in danger. But, after an election, events may occur that, when set before the public in real time, cause some to change to advocate intervention while others remain non-interventionist. When the constituent disagrees with her representative, regardless of which of the two changed their mind as a real crisis erupts, there is no direct mechanism to ensure her voice is heard.

And, as likely, new issues not even considered at the time of an election will arise, giving many more opportunities for divergence of position between a legislator and those who voted for her. Social policies, such as consideration for the trans-gendered or drug policy or rules applicable to law enforcement have all in recent times arisen from below the attention of most to front-and-center in political discourse. And financial matters can change rapidly with changes in the economy or new analyses of fiscal affairs. A representative elected a year before may have very different positions as to any of those issues from that of the constituents who voted for that representative based upon positions that were discussed during an election. Once again, the constituent who disagrees with her representative as to any of these matters has no direct voice.

With liquid democracy, on the other hand, a citizen may, in real-time, express her or his position as to each issue of importance to that citizen. Further, that citizen can delegate voting power from time to time as she chooses to another with whom she agrees or who she respects, always retaining the power to take back control of her vote at any time. Thus the problem of disagreement with one’s representative as to particular issues from time to time disappears. Each citizen retains total control, to the extent she wishes to exercise it, as to every issue that may arise.

[dsernst]

Closed in favor of PR https://github.com/liquidvote/blog/pull/21