Suffrage

[C1ay]

suffrage /sufrij/

 

• noun the right to vote in political elections.

 

— ORIGIN originally in the sense intercessory prayers, also assistance: from Latin suffragium.

 

Many of the world's societies employ suffrage in choosing their government, their leaders and their laws. Many regard universal suffrage as a necessary element of democracy.

 

What are the pros and cons of suffrage? To what extent is it an aid or obstacle to choosing qualified leaders? To what extent does it turn the process into a simple popularity contest? Does it aid or hamper societies in building governments that truly govern in the best interests of all of their members? Does it aid or hamper the effort to build quality legislation that is fair and balanced for the whole of a society?

 

I find myself increasingly of the opinion that universal suffrage is an obstacle to finding qualified leaders and the formation of legislation that is truly in the best interests of all the members of a society. What do you think?

[jackson33]

As presented, this subject is very hard to address. World democracies, however presented differ in many ways. Parliamentary systems, the leaders are subject to rejection for popular opinion, but comes from the legislature itself and in many countries an impoverished populace will maintain a leader into dictatorship.

 

In the US, its somewhat different, though timed out and there are certain protections from the other systems. With the exception of now, the President/VP all voting and by WHOM is dictated by the States, which was intended. The States by ratification have allowed various to near total suffrage or the privilege to vote to near all people over 18 years old. Even that of the P/VP has been accepted as near the popular vote of this total, since the built in system for State legislature's rejection of the majority, has been largely ignored. This is why I have often mentioned, State Legislature or public approval of Senators, seems to be equal in any potential decision.

 

If suffrage of any group or demographic, is limited, the pool of potential candidates would have and would be equally limited. Inspiration or leadership qualities, should not be limited to any one type person, in todays society where education and media influence (good or bad) is still a major influence. Ignorance or some form of apathy will always exist in party loyalty, heritage or some notion of benefit, again good or bad.

 

Many times, several where all have been allowed to vote the public the public in the US has tended toward those interest of the total. WWII, Korea, treaty affirmations, Afghanistan just a few. Vietnam, Iraq may have been opposed, as many specific policies of government (War on Poverty), but in their times were supported, again by the cumulative total of eligible voters. I could lay this on party affiliation, but statistically its been the plurality both in public opinion and the total electorate, which has always come from the peoples house...

[C1ay]

If suffrage of any group or demographic, is limited, the pool of potential candidates would have and would be equally limited. Inspiration or leadership qualities, should not be limited to any one type person, in todays society where education and media influence (good or bad) is still a major influence. Ignorance or some form of apathy will always exist in party loyalty, heritage or some notion of benefit, again good or bad.

 

IMO the pool of potential candidates should be limited to those qualified to do the job, those with the experience to do the job. In the U.S. it seems to be tending more and more towards a popularity contest as opposed to a search for the best person to do the job.

 

Imagine if a large bank searched for a CEO the same way we search for a President. Anyone in the company could run regardless of qualifications. Imagine that the current Chairman of the Board is opposed by a teller or loan officer promising raises for all employees. All of the sudden the CEO process is a popularity contest and the one making the most promises wins even if they cannot keep those promises or do the job they are elected to do. This scenario doesn't work for business and doesn't work for government either. The bank needs a qualified CEO to do the best job for the company regardless of popularity.

 

Many times, several where all have been allowed to vote the public the public in the US has tended toward those interest of the total. WWII, Korea, treaty affirmations, Afghanistan just a few. Vietnam, Iraq may have been opposed, as many specific policies of government (War on Poverty), but in their times were supported, again by the cumulative total of eligible voters. I could lay this on party affiliation, but statistically its been the plurality both in public opinion and the total electorate, which has always come from the peoples house...

 

IMO this is tending away from the interest of the total. More and more voters are voting for the politicians that are promising them the most gifts and not those that promise to cut spending and get our finances in order. More and more voters are not voting for candidates whose policies would require them to exercise more personal responsibility. They are voting for becoming more and more dependent on government, driving government into the services business where it doesn't belong. More and more I believe we are seeing the viral effects of 'mob rule' by not limiting the choices the mob can vote for.

[Thunderbird]

IMO the pool of potential candidates should be limited to those qualified to do the job, those with the experience to do the job. In the U.S. it seems to be tending more and more towards a popularity contest as opposed to a search for the best person to do the job.

 

Imagine if a large bank searched for a CEO the same way we search for a President. Anyone in the company could run regardless of qualifications. Imagine that the current Chairman of the Board is opposed by a teller or loan officer promising raises for all employees. All of the sudden the CEO process is a popularity contest and the one making the most promises wins even if they cannot keep those promises or do the job they are elected to do. This scenario doesn't work for business and doesn't work for government either. The bank needs a qualified CEO to do the best job for the company regardless of popularity.

 

 

 

IMO this is tending away from the interest of the total. More and more voters are voting for the politicians that are promising them the most gifts and not those that promise to cut spending and get our finances in order. More and more voters are not voting for candidates whose policies would require them to exercise more personal responsibility. They are voting for becoming more and more dependent on government, driving government into the services business where it doesn't belong. More and more I believe we are seeing the viral effects of 'mob rule' by not limiting the choices the mob can vote for.

I’m not really seeing this “Mob rule trend you’re speaking of . The electorate has always been a made up of different classes of people that do not see the world in the same way. The reason they do not is simply because they do not live in the same world. Democracy is about attempting to give a voice to every one in every facet of society. A President has to, if he or she wants to be elected, Attempt to represent, not in a real legislative sense but more as an image, of what the American public wants their leader to be. What I’m try to convey is a president in some way's is a popularity contest. They should reflect something that the common man can relate to, This can be bad or good depending on the public mind set. After 8 years of Bush the public should have done some soul searching and realized a fake cowboy is not the image we should be reflecting to the world. We get what we deserve, that's the great thing about democracy.

[C1ay]

A President has to, if he or she wants to be elected, Attempt to represent, not in a real legislative sense but more as an image, of what the American public wants their leader to be. What I’m try to convey is a president in some way's is a popularity contest.

 

It is not the job of the executive branch to be a representative of the people. It is the job to be the administrative executive of government in the best interest of the people. Making grandiose promises of gifts from the treasury, that it cannot afford, is not what we need of an executive. A good leader must make unpopular decisions on behalf of the whole and those do not come from those that only want to be popular. I do not see the current system of selecting an executive or representatives as being the meritocratic process that it should be.

[Thunderbird]

It is not the job of the executive branch to be a representative of the people. It is the job to be the administrative executive of government in the best interest of the people.

After they are elected, but they first have to be elected.

 

 

 

 

Making grandiose promises of gifts from the treasury, that it cannot afford, is not what we need of an executive. A good leader must make unpopular decisions on behalf of the whole and those do not come from those that only want to be popular. I do not see the current system of selecting an executive or representatives as being the meritocratic process that it should be.

The only solution is to have a better informed public. The system is a good system. It is imperfect and if there exsist a better one I'v not heard it as yet.

[freeztar]

The only solution is to have a better informed public.

 

Or a cultural revolution...

 

When the general populace is more concerned about executive administration than American Idol or Angelina's new twins, then we might see more politics that actually stick to the issues and do not aim to deceive.

 

I'm with Tbird though, I don't see a way to fix this. Perhaps we could have the state reps vote for the prez? I'm sure that would not go over too well.

 

I seem to recall that this issue was highly debated when the Constitution was being formed. What did the founding fathers have to say about this?

[Thunderbird]

This is bit off thread but I talked to my state rep at the county fair over the weekend and she said that our senator from Mo has a good shot as Vp pick. Clair McCaskill.

[jackson33]

Or a cultural revolution...

 

When the general populace is more concerned about executive administration than American Idol or Angelina's new twins, then we might see more politics that actually stick to the issues and do not aim to deceive.

 

I'm with Tbird though, I don't see a way to fix this. Perhaps we could have the state reps vote for the prez? I'm sure that would not go over too well.

 

I seem to recall that this issue was highly debated when the Constitution was being formed. What did the founding fathers have to say about this?

 

Over the years, America has been a continuous cultural revolution. The demographics, ideology, laws, suffrage, have changed a great deal, BUT each generation has accepted the basic foundation for these changes to be limited to...The Constitution.

 

Yes, the founders debated who the nominees should be and how the final selection should be made, additionally who should be qualified. There were no party affiliation and individuals were considered on their merit. Since their object was and HAD to be ratification of the Constitution, they set minimal standards (Age, residency and general mental and physical condition) and the process to each states discretion. Party politics changed this, in time probably for the best.

 

Following the Party line, the 'Electoral College' TODAY and since the beginning has been used. Those electors are not bound by any vote and can legally choose anyone they want. They are taken from Congressional Districts, to this day.

 

Better informed electorate; The basic idea of 'free speech' was to allow that electorate or todays, access to the current and various opinions. As mentioned the writers of the Constitution, through the Federalist Papers, used the then existing media and since, every person seeking public office, has been allowed to freely express opinion. Editorials, advertisements or coverage of newsworthy events. It may be the electorate, hears only what they want, but has always had access to the information. It is not the responsibility of the working government to influence or educate people, into a judgement...

[jackson33]

IMO the pool of potential candidates should be limited to those qualified to do the job, those with the experience to do the job. In the U.S. it seems to be tending more and more towards a popularity contest as opposed to a search for the best person to do the job.

 

Imagine if a large bank searched for a CEO the same way we search for a President. Anyone in the company could run regardless of qualifications. Imagine that the current Chairman of the Board is opposed by a teller or loan officer promising raises for all employees. All of the sudden the CEO process is a popularity contest and the one making the most promises wins even if they cannot keep those promises or do the job they are elected to do. This scenario doesn't work for business and doesn't work for government either. The bank needs a qualified CEO to do the best job for the company regardless of popularity.

 

 

 

IMO this is tending away from the interest of the total. More and more voters are voting for the politicians that are promising them the most gifts and not those that promise to cut spending and get our finances in order. More and more voters are not voting for candidates whose policies would require them to exercise more personal responsibility. They are voting for becoming more and more dependent on government, driving government into the services business where it doesn't belong. More and more I believe we are seeing the viral effects of 'mob rule' by not limiting the choices the mob can vote for.

 

First, the duty of the executive and his/her administration, to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. That persons duty is then to the total, not any particular party, personal ideology or even then to their own home state or interest held previously to the election. Any actions perceived contrary to this end, can be contested by members of the Cabinet or the Congress.

 

In business, any form of business, the objective is to make money. In the corporate structure, the electorate is the investors or stock holders, but the objective remains the same. A competing business, by virtue of success will draw those investors from others. In Government the interest of the Federal is supposed to be those common interest of all the states or at least a major portion of them.

 

Since we have party participation and its not going anywhere, the leaders of these parties, do search out and select persons (in a number of ways) to run for office. It may come from local politics or actions in lower levels of government, but certainly those doing the search, are well qualified. Its not a bad thing, there are differences and its not a bad thing if some fail in the process to become number one/two or in fact if that one/two fails in their attempt. If be known to many of our ancestors, many would be failures, have turned out to be 'great' by historians and of course the reverse. Sometimes its better to study the success of what was, to what is perceived 'potential failures' of the future. Americans when called on (and many nations) have come together, as they will in the future.

 

You know, I DO NOT like using Democracy when talking Federal Government, but remember all of the States are democratic and in some cases, much more so than others. The founders also were concerned to some degree with local representation from every area of the then or todays country, even desiring a quick turn over or current representation from the people. House members and if we had held to the original ideas, their would be 8,000 people flooding into Washington each session. Their concern and I agree was for those that ended up in the Senate or Executive.

 

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting some form of test for voting, educational background? How could suffrage be turned around, in the first place? It is what it is, and the process to what it is, came from constitutional requirements....

[C1ay]

I seem to recall that this issue was highly debated when the Constitution was being formed. What did the founding fathers have to say about this?

 

Alexander Hamilton summarized the highlights of the debates in Federalist No. 68. The details can be found in many of the other Federalist Papers and the second volume of Farrand's Records of the Constitutional Convention beginning around page 95. I quote in its entirety here No. 68 so that the emboldened parts can be seen in their original context.

 

The Federalist No. 68

The Mode of Electing the President

Independent Journal

Wednesday, March 12, 1788

[Alexander Hamilton]

To the People of the State of New York:

 

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.E1

 

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

 

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

 

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

 

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

 

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

 

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says:

 

"For forms of government let fools contest --

That which is best administered is best," --

 

yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

 

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.

 

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

 

PUBLIUS

 

The bolded pieces highlight the concern to chose an individual based on their qualifications to perform the duty of the office and not the individuals popularity. It is clear from the beginning that the electors are intended to be a body of people most capable of analyzing the qualities of the individual to govern. There was also a strong concern that the process should isolate the choosing of an individual from foreign influence. IMO the current process chosen by the individual states to use the popular vote to chose their electors and the practice of the electors in voting for the winner of the popular vote as opposed to voting for the most qualified individual has turned the process into a popularity contest instead of a process the yields the most qualified person to do the job.

[C1ay]

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting some form of test for voting, educational background? How could suffrage be turned around, in the first place? It is what it is, and the process to what it is, came from constitutional requirements....

 

There is no constitutional requirement that the electors of the Electoral College be chosen by suffrage. IMO suffrage has corrupted the intended process of choosing the best candidate based on the qualifications to do the job as opposed to their popularity with the people at large. I don't think the majority of the population at large understand the job well enough to be part of the process in selecting the best qualified individual and should not be a direct part of the process via suffrage. Further, I am increasingly offended by the parades put on by unqualified candidates making promises to the masses in order to secure a job they are not qualified to do and the masses having the power to put them in that job. I find myself leaning in favor of a process that removes suffrage from the equation entirely in favor of a more rigorous selection process that gives more weight to the meritorious accomplishments of the candidates in executive positions.

 

It's time to end the cycle of moron versus moron for President of the United States one election after another!

[freeztar]

There is no constitutional requirement that the electors of the Electoral College be chosen by suffrage. IMO suffrage has corrupted the intended process of choosing the best candidate based on the qualifications to do the job as opposed to their popularity with the people at large.

 

Can we blame media? In other words, do you think that popularity might have arisen as a major deciding factor in presidential races over time based on increased communications and media?

 

I don't think the majority of the population at large understand the job well enough to be part of the process in selecting the best qualified individual and should not be a direct part of the process via suffrage. Further, I am increasingly offended by the parades put on by unqualified candidates making promises to the masses in order to secure a job they are not qualified to do and the masses having the power to put them in that job.

 

So what makes one qualified to be president in your opinion? Is not qualification in the eye of the beholder?

 

I find myself leaning in favor of a process that removes suffrage from the equation entirely in favor of a more rigorous selection process that gives more weight to the meritorious accomplishments of the candidates in executive positions.

Will you expound upon this "rigorous selection process"?

It's time to end the cycle of moron versus moron for President of the United States one election after another!

 

I agree! And a first step could be making it moron against moron against moron against moron against moron. Some 'prime number' of candidate choices would be ideal.

[jackson33]

Briefly on your post to Freezstar and FP 68. I agree the founders were concerned with the ignorance of the general population or who they would select to represent the fledging republic. I must remind you, those were very different times, education of even the elite in society was not always politically oriented, nor where they privy or enlightened to foreign affairs. The so called electorate, during those times were no less influence by the then media or those that represented them in political affairs. Frankly many that were educated, probably oppose independence in the first place or loyal to the crown, 25% of the total were.

 

Any connection to a desire to include the general public, which is a direct desire, outside FP or selling of the Constitution, is presented in the House Memberships and also mentioned many times in several of the FP. Think Adams said the 3000 per member would be maintained.

 

Personally, I feel your TOTAL concerns with the system, fall into concerns over this cycle, the Nov. general election and one or both the probable next president. Admittedly I prefer McCain and for a variety of reasons and distrust Obama for probably as many reasons. With some understanding of History and the character of older folks, I see a similarity in McCain and Adams which were/are both middle of the road moderates, IMO. I would like to give a positive comparison for Obama, but McGovern is all that comes to mind, possibly Carter. I won't bother you with additional understanding, but Bush was not conservative and if were, IMO would not have won in 2000.

 

I do agree that all indications, would make many people feel the country is heading in the wrong direction, that the total is becoming in some way dependent on the rest. However and from a conservative view, the 94 Congressional election and those of 2006, have shown a remarkable resistance to any perceived direction....

[C1ay]

Can we blame media? In other words, do you think that popularity might have arisen as a major deciding factor in presidential races over time based on increased communications and media?

 

The media is part of the problem. It wants its voice heard more than anyone elses on whom it thinks should be President and behaves accordingly. In the end it corrupts the process of finding a good President.

 

So what makes one qualified to be president in your opinion? Is not qualification in the eye of the beholder?

 

I think the current list of qualification is overdue for review. It currently restrains candidates to only those that are citizens and 35 years of ages or more. Me thinks it needs to be a bit more restrictive than this considering the magnitude of the job.

 

Will you expound upon this "rigorous selection process"?

 

I have no particular process in mind but I would envision a process similar to one a large corporation might employ in seeking a CEO. Most, if not all, use a process that examines the merits of the candidates regardless of their popularity.

 

In the end that really is the problem, it has become a popularity contest and a good leader that will take the actions that need to be done is one that will be unpopular. We need a process that enables such an unpopular candidate to succeed.

[Michaelangelica]

 

I find myself increasingly of the opinion that universal suffrage is an obstacle to finding qualified leaders and the formation of legislation that is truly in the best interests of all the members of a society. What do you think?

Some years ago I would have disagreed with you violently.

 

Then a friend asked me to hand out "How to Vote" cards at a Federal election. (she was standing for a minor party)

On the day , one Old Lady asked how she could vote for Mr. Menzies ( A PM dead for 50 years).

 

Then I got to "scrutineer" votes

That was a shock.

"Number from 1-4 who you want" ; Pretty simple you would think

Well, we had crosses, ticks, Egyptian hyogriphs you name it.

That's when I started to think that an Oligarchy was the way to go

 

Then, again, Churchill said democracy is a S##t system but no one has invented anything better

[C1ay]

That's when I started to think that an Oligarchy was the way to go

 

I'm thinking some new type of Obligarchy is the way to go. I favor representative democracy in general. I favor a democratic foundation where the goals and actions of government are those of, by and for the people. I favor a representative form as a buffer to prevent a true democracy which tends toward mob rule over time. I favor an increase in the accountability of representatives to comply with an "obligation" to act in the interests of the people according to their desires regardless of the representative's interest or desire. If people are going to vote it should be more about what they want from their government and not the individual.

 

Consider for instance a current issue in the U.S. of domestic drilling for oil off the U.S. coasts. If a majority of the population favor this and it is in their best interest the it should be the obligation of their representatives to work toward this goal no matter how the people's representatives presonally feel about the issue. In spite of a majority of the population in favor of this we have one representative in the house blocking a vote on it because of her personal beliefs on the matter. In addition, I live in a district where a current poll of the local population reveals that 90% of the people in my area favor drilling and yet the response I got from my representative when I emailed him on this matter is that he would oppose any and all efforts to drilling, in direct opposition to his constituents. This is not government of, by or for the people.

 

There are obviously many examples where the people's representatives should work against certain desires of the people. All of the people may want free money from the government but it would not be in their best interest since it would bankrupt their government. This is the advantage of a representative design where educated representatives can sort out the wants of the people from the needs of the people.