Collective Voter Responsibility

Question Does a Democratic Government "truly" represent the opinions of its people, and is it right to blame "the people" as a collective for the actions of a government?

Context I asked that a distinction be drawn between "Australians" and "The Australian Government" (CommonwealthOfAustralia). I got this response:

Nope. You voted them in and/or permitted them to be voted in. If you don't like 'em, and you don't do something effective about 'em, they represent you individually and collectively. Same way GeorgeBush represents all Americans, so long as they're apathetic enough to sit in front of their TVs and watch talking heads. Sorry, that's just the way reality is. Change it if you want to.

Does this mean if we vote them out next time, we're allowed to disown their actions? Or, to quote a popular bumper sticker slogan: "Don't Blame Me: I Voted Labor"?

The People Are Responsible Because As I understand it, the argument is that people who could stop the actions of a government but don't are responsible. And while I agree, it just doesn't work that neatly.

"The People" Are Not Responsible Because Simply, because there is no such thing as "The People". OccamsRazor tells us not to forget that certain things - Rivers, Economies, Nations, and so on, are not real things but labels that we give to masses of individual things acting (sometimes) in a manner that seems to make labelling them as a collective entity convenient, for some reason. The idea of the mass of "voters" who are collectively responsible for the government's actions may be a convenient picture - but it's false.

You may as well argue that a person is not real because they are just a mass of individual cells. The reason the politicians get away with all the hurtful, irresponsible, self-centered and downright evil things they do is because you and everyone like you has bought off on this childish sophism. Face it - you are responsible. If you don't like it, change it.

Additionally one may observe that one typically ends up voting for one of the major parties on a best-fit basis - the party I hate the least, for instance. In this way, it is very difficult to have a government elected on a platform that the majority of people are against, but this does not mean that the majority of people are in favour of the winning party's policies in every detail. (Last federal Australian election, both major parties had some cruel policies lined up for refugees, so there wasn't much of a choice to make in that area). Democracy is a mechanism for frequent regime change and making sure that none of them is asbsolutely repugnant - but that's all you can guarentee.

If you don't work to start a new party, or change the position of a party, to something you find acceptable, then you're directly responsible for what the ruling party does. Stop whining about it and accept it - their cruelty is your cruelty.

Ah, so the bumper sticker idea is right. In that case, you shouldn't blame the Australian people; Howard got in via clever manipulation of the electoral system (in particular, the inflated value of a vote in a marginal seat), but didn't get the majority of the two-party preferred popular vote. Similar to how Bush got the presidency, actually.

However Anyone who failed to vote altogther has a responsibility on an individual level for the government, because they didn't care and apathy has horrid consequences.

On the contrary, someone may quite rationally decide that voting does not serve their interests. They might, for example, spend election day encouraging people who have no opinion to avoid voting - thereby increasing the chances that the eventual government will represent those who have strong opinions.

If you don't vote, you should mutely accept what government does get in; that is what your refusal to vote implies.

Most systems are too influenced by large money contributions. There are many laws that wouldn't pass if presented directly to voters.

This is easily remedied. Start a campaign fund. Make access to it conditional on support for the policies you endorse. If the politicians who access the fund don't abide by its rules, sue them.

CategorySociology CategoryOffTopic (definitely a page to move to TheReformSociety - any volunteers?)