From: gelinas@merit.edu (Joe Gelinas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: GREENS & CANDIDATE ACCOUNTABILITY
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:21:34 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: merit.edu

Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:

>accountable.  For example, imagine the political troubles that
>Clinton would have if the Democratic Party convened and decided
>to withdraw his nomination, render a vote of no-confidence, or
>similar action.  While this act would not legally force his
>resignation (as I understand), it would clearly be his political
>death.  Remember what happened to Maggie Thatcher?  And what seems
>to be happening with Boris Yeltsin?
 
Were the Democratic Party to hold such a convention, it would have no 
effect at all.  Since we elect individuals, not parties, to office, 
the party deciding that a particular person no longer represented the 
party would have no effect on that person representing the folks who 
elected hir.  Consider:  Members of Congress have switched parties, 
and still been returned to Congress.  The voters in their district 
have decided that the person, not the party, represents their 
interests.  Thus, members represent the citizens of their districts, 
not the party with which they have claimed affiliation (not 'pledged 
allegiance'). Because our basic system is different, our elected 
officials do not face the same threats that others might.  The fate 
of Thatcher and Yeltsin is not applicable to our system.  (At least, 
not directly so.)
 
>Now, perhaps it would be better to have a constitutional provision
>for recall whereby the citizens would vote, as in a referendum,
>whether or not to recall the President.  As I understand it, some
>states do provide this option for their members of Congress, as
>I believe some in Oregon have considered for Packwood.  Clearly,
>on the more local level this is an option in some areas (not my
>own in Virginia, unfortunately).  About a year ago, some group
>was organizing in Washington D.C. to petition for a vote to recall
>their mayor, Sharon Pratt Kelly.  This didn't get very far, but
>you better believe that it drew public attention!
 
I was about to say, "Recall is a local matter," but then I took a 
look at my copy of the Constitution of the United States.  In 
Article I, Section 5, it says, "Each house shall be the judge of 
the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.... 
Each house may ... punish its members for disorderly behaviour, and,
with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."  There is no
mention of the citizens petitioning for such expulsion.  I suppose
the Members would consider such a petition, were one delivered to
them.

>Now there is an interesting debate which lies under the surface of
>the issue of candidate accountability.  The question is whether the
>candidate is only accountable to the party, or to the entire population
>in that district.  (Some candidates may claim accountability to God,
>the universe, the entire U.S.A., or their favorite S&L crook.)  All the
>methods I have mentioned, except the Ca. Green Party's NOTA example,
>presume the candidate is accountable to the entire population, not
>just the party.
  
Yup.  In our system, elected officials _are_ accountable to the 
citizens.  It may help to remember that parties as we know them did
not exist at the time our system was established.  While there were
such parties (G. Washington was a Whig), they were not considered as
important as they are now.  It was not until Jefferson instead of 
Burr won election as President that the rules were changed to allow
the President and Vice President to run as a ticket. (Compare Article
II, Section I with the Twelfth Amendment.)
  
>Perhaps, this is the best way for the U.S. where we do not have
>proportional representation.  Without proportional representation,
>an elected official probably thinks that s/he represents everyone.
>However, without proportional representation, we have a serious
>problem here.  For example, how can Clinton represent the interests
>of both the Pro-Lifers and the Pro-Choicers?  Now, assuming that he
>only is to represent the interest of the Pro-Choicers, which would
>be appropriate since he clearly campaigned on a Pro-Choice platform,
>should he then be subject to recall only by Pro-Choicers? And, what
>about the Pro-Lifers?  Who is to represent their interests?
  
I would say that we have deliberately rejected proportional 
representation.  We have deliberately chosen that elected officials 
represent _all_ of their constituents and are honour-bound to consider 
the needs and desires of all those constituents, not just the desires 
of those constituents who happened to agree with or have voted for 
them.  The idea that someone could give full weight and credence to a 
position opposed to their own, and support it as if it were their own, 
may be foreign to you, but it is not to me.  It is, in fact, the norm
of philosophical discussion.  And since the Founding Fathers were 
trying to establish a government of and by philosophers, it seems
reasonable to have set up a system of representation that requires
such behaviour.  
 
Our candidates do not run on just one issue.  Well, some do, but those 
candidates seldom get elected.  We expect our elected officials to be
complete people, with many interests and abilities.  'Pro-X' or 
'Anti-Y' is seldom enough to garner sufficient support to win election.

>In a proportional representation system, like Germany's, this is all
>taken care of.  If the Pro-Choicers got 70% of the vote, then they
>get 70% of the people in Congress, and the Pro-Lifers get 30% of the
>people in Congress.  Now, clearly the Pro-Lifers are in a minority in
>this system, which would not please them, but at least they get their
>30%  In our system of non-proportional representation, the Pro-Lifers
>would get NOTHING (assuming the 70/30 split were evenly distributed).
  
This is all well and good, if Pro-Life is all one cares about.  But
most people have a lot of other concerns and interests.  For the vast
majority of people, when compared to war, international trade, and
such, abortion just isn't important enough an issue to base a national
election on.  (Which should not be taken to mean that it is not 
important enough to consider when making an individual decision.)
 
>However, with proportional representation, it is clear that the
>elected official is only accountable to the party and platform that
>s/he ran on.
 
As opposed to the citizens who elected them, or the nation they
(supposedly) represent? 

                       Joseph L. Gelinas, Jr.
               gelinas@merit.edu    gelinas@umich.edu