Rob Ford: a case on representation vs. delegation

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now I'm not going to defend Rob Ford for his rambunctious public statements opposing publicly-funded health care, but the Toronto mayor's newfound notoriety makes an excellent case for debating representation vs. delegation.

I have posted in the past my preference for statistical representation, specifically, within this debate, and some pitfalls with delegation. Here we have a man who has admitted to taking marijuana, but who has not been indicted by the authorities due to insufficient proof. Assuming his health care statement never took place, under a delegative system, mere public prejudice would have led to his immediate recall.

Unless the individual has an abuse-of-office scandal on his hands, or unless said individual makes a policy flip-flop (including intentionally campaigning on one end of politics and keeping office on another), under a representative system he would and should stay on.

[helot]

and unless there are doubts over a delegate fulfilling their mandate why would they be recalled after already been chosen?


Your claim is just nonsense. Tell me, what's to stop a representative being removed due to mere public prejudice?

[Die Neue Zeit]

As I said, public prejudice is more than enough to recall a delegate. In this case, "he smoked pot" is that public prejudice.

What's to stop a representative from being removed due to mere public prejudice? Well, typically they don't get recalled between election cycles because such mechanisms unfortunately don't exist.

As I said, I prefer recall by popular vote, recall by lower body (the political body from which they were selected) and especially recall by party, but only on the two conditions above. As long as the representative doesn't abuse public office or make a policy flip-flop (including intentionally campaigning on one end of politics and keeping office on another), said representative should be guaranteed in legal writing a full term in office between cycles. No mob rule of the public prejudice, thank you.

[Sabot Cat]

"Mob rule" and the possibly fleeting whims of the public have long been excuses used by oligarchs to prevent the people (or more accurately, the proletariat) from becoming truly sovereign. Representatives or delegates are essentially there because it's logistically difficult to have everyone vote on everything all of the time, thus if the people want to recall a delegate for a reason perceived to be flippant, that's not a conceptual difficulty for the theory of delegative democracy because the delegate should be nothing more than the spokesperson and secretary of public will who can be replaced at their whims. Indeed, for each piece of legislation it should be common practice for those they represent to be able to directly intercede on that particular vote with enough signatures upon an initiative to do so.

Besides, if they are "flippantly" removed they can be just as easily restored to their former role.

[Skyhilist]

So let me get this straight. You feel that because the public can't entirely discern what's right and wrong in some cases, they shouldn't be able to recall people in office, and that said people in office instead should have unaccountable authority? As if that's somehow better?

Also, there's not going to ever be a delegate system under (non-transitional) capitalism, because it would make it harder for the bourgeois to manipulate the actions of people in office. So if that's what you're talking about, then what you're saying is completely irrelevant.

Now, if you are talking about during and after the revolution, that's an entirely different story. A successful revolution is going to require a majority or at least large minority of class conscious workers. You think these people are as foolish as the current public of Toronto? You think that a class conscious populace isn't capable of determining right from wrong with delegates? You think they aren't even intelligent enough that placing recall power in their hands would be worse than allowing representatives to have authority unaccountable to the people it's supposed to represent?

[blake 3:17]

Unless the individual has an abuse-of-office scandal on his hands, or unless said individual makes a policy flip-flop, under a representative system he would and should stay on.

The thing is he has abused office -- the bus for his football team as example.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Blake, I stand corrected if that were indeed a public bus.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

so according to you, it's 'democracy' when the public chooses something that you agree with, and 'public prejudice' when they choose something you don't agree with.

I'm so glad your political musings are pointless and irrelevant.

[blake 3:17]

so according to you, it's 'democracy' when the public chooses something that you agree with, and 'public prejudice' when they choose something you don't agree with.

I'm so glad your political musings are pointless and irrelevant.

The situation is actually really really complicated. At present Rob Ford is still Mayor by title, but his former deputy & now nemesis, Norm Kelly is acting as Mayor. It's really weird. The Left had been on Ford's case the hardest, but in the past while it's been the Right that has given Ford the shove.

There are convoluted legal & constitutional issues involved, not all of which are worth ignoring.

Edited to add: Since he's looking at serious lawsuits & there's a good chance he will end up doing time, he's starting to 'apologize' 8 of Rob Ford's recent public apologies http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/8-of-rob-ford-s-recent-public-apologies-1.2467671