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) I agree with this assertion because you need local representatives that understand the demands of a large town. If you have more of a national government, that government will not always look out for the smaller cities which can create an unfair advantage to larger cities. If people were to have a 'Quaker' Meeting where the whole town could attend to discuss matters, it would be most beneficial to find a public policy fit for that city.
ReplyDelete2)I agree with this statement, suffrage to all equates directly to democracy. If everyone has a chance to vote, regardless of race, sex, and economic status, it is the fairest form of government to any state large or small.
1. I agree with his assertion that it is better to have representatives elected for each town/area. This process not only ensures that the people elect who they favor, but also guarantees representatives who know their area best. It is unfair to ask one person to feel the same compassion and understanding he has for his hometown for another, foreign town. By electing representatives in accordance with the area they know best, the representatives know and understand the issues facing their area better than any other representative.
ReplyDelete2. I think suffrage by lot is the best way to include all citizens in politics, like Montesquieu says. It prevents citizens from feeling insignificant and at the hands of a large government. However, I do not understand what he means by the "method is in itself defective" because I do not find any fault with it. Maybe during the time Montesquieu was writing, the election process was corrupt and that is why he says it is defective. However, in the US today, from what I know, I think the election process is fair and efective.
1. Though Montesquieu may seem a little harsh at first, he is very realistic and accurate. I do believe that the best people to deal with certain issues are the ones that are familiar with the area and the region's political background. Therefore, I do think think it makes perfect sense for the inhabitants to select the people they want to represent the region. Also, I once again agree with him because as Plato touched upon, I do think that the biggest problem with democracy is that the majority of the people may not know whats best for the state. Intellectual representative - if chosen wisely - may be more fit to lead the state. Public forums or debates are the best place for public policies to develop and circulate.
ReplyDelete2. I once again agree with Montesquieu that the suffrage of lot is very natural and the core part of democracy. He also mentioned earlier that is at times, the biggest inconvenience and can often not work out for the better. I also agree that leaders try to regulate it with either lobbying, threats, etc; however, they can never fully amend the process because it is a part of democracy.
1. This is a pretty good idea, and obviously one that was incorporated into the US government. By doing this, you make sure that the majority of places are content with everything that is done by the government. The only problem with this would be the minority, which would still be discontented. As minorities can actually be rather large, this might cause some turmoil for the nation. Along with that, if one elects officials from "every considerable place," there will probably be a great number of officials, and it may be difficult to get anything done. A boon of this, though, it the fact that the representative might be closer to his community and the people he represents than an elected man from a larger area. He can also be held more accountable for his actions as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, if parties have not been established, discussion between these representatives would be very fruitful. Talk amongst a bunch of rational, unbiased men would get a lot done. However, if the representatives are irrational, biased, and have been split into opposing parties, it is hard to get anything done whatsoever.
2. I believe what Montesquieu is saying here is that not everyone is fit to rule. If you are elected by lot, even if it's from another small town like the one mentioned in the previous section, there's a chance that you might not be able to rule well. You might be dishonest, or disabled in some way, or just plain better at following than leading. Honestly, would you feel confident with your life under the control of one of the Kardashians?
1. I Find Montesquieu's assertion to be a believable aspect on the method of electing representatives for the legislature. If a person does not live in the town in which the representative is needed, they cannot know the issues that would concern an actual member of the town, and so the only logical people to make these choices would in fact be the people of the town, as Montesquieu says. This discussion would best take place between Montesquieu and a political leader when deciding how the election of people to the legislature should be elected.
ReplyDelete2. This assertion continues with the theme of who is best to elect representatives. Just one person out of an entire country is bound to have a different frame of mind than the rest of the citizens. Therefore, unless the entire country is of a like mindset, there is no way that everyone could come to a majority to determine what kind of representative the country needs. In a town, the body of people is small enough to have a relatively similar idea of who to elect. However, in a country, the body of people is too great to come to a consensus through voting. Therefore, suffrage by lot, though good in theory, wouldn't yield results that reflect each person's desired representative. The majority would completely obliterate the minority votes.
1 I agree with the assertion because the countrymen that come from different backgrounds would have trouble relating to each other. Although the representative should be elected by the people, there is still possible for the people to be taken advantage of by their neighbors. The best discussion of public policy is one that would take place behind closed doors between the policy makers. They are the only one who usually posses all of the information about a decision and are the ones focused on being regarded highly enough for reelection. Because of the motivation of reelection, a transcript of the conversation should be open to the people after the fact.
ReplyDelete2 Suffrage by lot is worthless when one factors in the deceptive measures that can be taken by those who want power. When a possible representative is able to pander and deceive, the people can be blinded to the intentions of the candidate. Suffrage by the lot allows for incumbent representatives to to claim that they support the views of the majority while taking their own interests into account once their positions are secured. Suffrage by lot is defective once the people have their options narrowed down by elective restrictions.
1. I agree with Montesquieu's assertion. Although the quotation is from the chapter "The Constitution of England," it applies to the American government; “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." In the case of America, towns would be states. Furthermore, the quote "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" reminds me of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Members are elected by state and therefore it is seen to that the needs of each state are properly addressed.
ReplyDelete2. I agree and disagree with this assertion. "Suffrage by lot" means everyone has the right to vote, which is an obvious characteristic of democracy. However, suffrage by lot does not necessarily mean that it "offends no one" -- many people, for example, did not vote for Barack Obama and are unhappy with his performance as President. Furthermore, I disagree with the statement: "[suffrage] animates each citizen with the pleasing hope of serving his country." In modern day America, while any man or woman could run for President, the chances of his or her election are slim. Presidential candidates are already people who are part of the government -- a governor or member of the Senate, for example.
1. This is a fantastic idea in terms of having a government reign over a large collection of towns cities and states. The people from each specific area know exactly what that place needs and what it doesn't. If there were only one leader, or a hand full of leaders selected without taking into account where they are from, the needs of towns and cities that are unrepresented in the government could be overlooked. This way each area has representation in the government and as much of a say as any other area as to their specific needs. The best place for this sort of discussion happen would be in a parliamentary-type meeting with all of the representatives present to discuss the issues of the overall country and each individual area within it. This meeting should probably be open so the public can sit in to see how they're being represented and
ReplyDeletehow their areas are being helped
2. I am slightly confused by this statement (particularly the last sentence) because I can't tell if he's being sarcastic and critical or stating what is actually happening. He says that the method of suffrage is defective, but the most eminent legislators want to regulate and amend it. If it is inherently defective, isn't that a waste of time? Shouldn't they move on to creating a more effective, not defective system of election? I couldn't tell if he was criticizing the legislators because they're laboring over a lost cause or if he was merely saying that the best legislators are attempting to fix what is broken.
1. In The Constitution of England, it is believed that for every place that people inhabit a representative should be given. The people of that given place know the "wants and interests" of their town and their relationship with their neighbors. Therefore, it is best suited, in order for that place to have a say in government, that it receive a native representative, rather than one of the general body. Further, the representatives would be responsible for discussing public affairs, which the people are not suited for. I believe that this is the best solution for all places to have equal representation and for the majority of the people to be involved in government. I am unsure of where this discussion of public policies; however I believe it would be discussed in arranged meetings.
ReplyDelete2. The assertion claims that the fact every person gets the right to vote is a defective method. Though I do believe it gives everyone the right to be involved in government and have a say, I do believe that there are some flaws. Like past philosophers we have read about, it may be true that the people do not know exactly what is best for them. Therefore, by giving all the right to vote, there is the possibility of putting the wrong people in power (wrong people meaning those who act out of self-interest). I do believe that legislators should try to amend or regulate it in order to assure the right people are in power.
1) I think he is correct in identifying the merits of a representative government. People representing a region's specific interests makes a lot of sense. Theoretically, I believe in self governance (at the smallest level possible). I think everyone should be free to govern their own home and body as they wish. However, since we live in reality, I would say that regional governance, similar to the State Legislatures of today, would be the best place for public discourse.
ReplyDelete2) I think its very interesting. As I understand it, he's basically saying that suffrage by lot is defective, and that it has yet to be made viable.
1) I agree with his assertion. A candidate should not be chosen because of a reputation that has been developed over time or because of a false character. Candidates should be chosen by those who really know them and their abilities. While knowing what the region needs and having a clear understanding of who the candidates really are, the citizens would have the best idea of who would fulfill the goals. If the goals are to be executed effectively, representatives are necessary. The discussion of public policy with the public best takes place, in my opinion, during the course of an election. During an election, the public holds the most power because candidates have to take a stance that the public agrees with.
ReplyDelete2) There will always exist problems with suffrage by lot. Unlike an aristocracy where there is little to no say in the laws, the people in a democracy have much of the control. This causes greater tension between the nation because a majority is on one side of an issue while a minority is on the other side. The system has been regulated to allow both sides to be represented and the majority does not have complete power over the minority.
1. During Montesquieu's time, I think this statement was quite understandable. There was no media coverage as there is today, and it would have been only logical to recommend the people electing representatives, who could then choose the ruler of the collective country. However, representatives may not always consider the overall wants and needs of the people who elect them, which also makes me doubt the success of this assertion. Discussion of public policies best take place when the candidates speak to the people directly, which would not occur if they were only sharing their views with elected representatives of the people.
ReplyDelete2. Clearly, Montesquieu seems to be against a democracy. Yet the reason that he mentions for a democracy, it "animates each citizen with the pleasing hope of serving his country" I believe is the most important reason to maintain a democracy. Countries and government are upheld solely because of the actions and decisions of each citizen, which is why they should be allowed to vote for who is running their country. I do not agree that the "method is in itself defective" because it is giving the people a voice to control a society which they make up. They are the ones who will be ruled, so it is only fair that they may elect their chosen leader.
1. The biggest driving force in the American Revolution was the lack of colonial representation in parliament. I completely agree with the passage and the revolutionaries. The people who know what is 'best' for a town would be the townspeople. That is because really, the 'interests' of the town are actually the 'interests' of the inhabitants. A town can not have wants and needs, only the people of the town. However, I also agree that "the people collectively are extremely unfit" for discussing public affairs. The people will want what they want, however, often behind want is the blindness to side-affects. People become so absorbed in what they want and need that they can forget that it could hurt a fellow townsperson.
ReplyDeleteOn a whole, all discussion of public policy is productive, however, not all discussion should be taken seriously. By using a system of representation a town, state, or nation has set up a system of distillation. Take a state with poor road conditions for example. First, one neighbor complains to another, than that neighbor agrees (hypothetically), and those men feel that all roads in the state should be repaved to the highest quality. Then the two men approach a representative and persuade him of the issue. However, the town representative knows that it is not cost effective to repave every single road in the state. Thus, when he presents the issue to the group of representatives for the state, he asks for all major roads be repaved to a high quality and a few minor roads to a medium quality. However, even this idea is truly cost ineffective and the rest of the representatives realize this, so they take the issue and all decide that only all major roads will be paved to a high quality. Thus, the initial issue was transformed to something that the state could produce without going bankrupt and thus in the best interest of the state. This would apply to any affair or policy.
2. Suffrage by lot is in fact natural to democracy, for it gives a say and opinion to all. However, I do agree that it is defective. As mentioned above, some voter's are not quite as versed in politics as is necessary for appropriate election of legislators and executives.