I would offer another important but often overlooked factor; whether the citizen is a net taxpayer or a net tax recipient.
Since the primary job of a citizen voting in a representative republic is to elect leaders who will decide how tax dollars are spent, I think it is a conflict of interest, having a perpetual class of tax recipients who get to vote for themselves to receive more tax dollars.
In an ideal world, net tax recipients would not be able to vote, but would have the option to check a box on their tax returns, which would allow them to forfeit the tax dollars they would be receiving, but in exchange, have their right to vote returned.
net tax recipients would not be able to vote, but would have the option to check a box on their tax returns
How would you characterize "net tax receipient"?
Is it based on? Income taxes?
Income taxes do not contribute to the running of the govt, as +99.95% of all federal income taxes collected are applied to payments if the bond holders of US Treasury bonds.
The majority of the debt incurred is applied to spending that no tax payers voted for. Instead "representatives" (previously constitutional "delegates" who are subject to recall) vote for whatever their campaign contributors demand. These contributions are generally tax-deductable, and the major $$ contributors get there money back in other ways.
Medicare and social security are both paid into a fund by each individual, which is why they're labeled "liabilities". The Federal govt owes these payments to the individuals who contributed $$ into the system.
Property taxes pay bonds issued locally for schools, etc. These are generally voted on, as municipal govts don't own the individual tax payers.
Interesting side note, the "$" symbol is a serpent coiled around a rod. Plenty of nonsense "fact checkers" dispute this fact, and they'll also tell you to go get the jab.
The serpent symbolizes wisdom, and the toxic injection is analogous to a snake bite.
I agree. And that would also help cover someone I think shouldn't be allowed to vote. Government workers. The point of voting is to poll the citizens how they would like the government to operate, not how the governors want to govern.
But if government workers are absolute net tax recipients then your solution would bar them anyway.
For me should is a tough question. See I don't think anyone should be voting depending on what the vote is on because a mob should not have control of what is not theirs. And as a system I don't think democracy works all that great. Of course a lot of other systems have flaws too, but I don't think democracy is some special system devoid of flaws that justifies other systems being overlooked. It isn't a given. So should be able to vote implies that we should have a democracy which I think isn't a given.
But being the progressive deontological anarcho capitalist that I am I do believe in improving the system we've got. So then the question isn't a moral one because it won't be moral in any case. It is what will get us better outcomes.
I think we'd get better outcomes if we had more assessing the candidates professional and intellectual qualifications rather than the likability of the candidate. So I'd select anything that I think would have even a slight bias toward thinking that way. So I'd say IQ, Age, Sex, and Race.
Now if we see bad outcomes from some of those I'd re-nig on any of them. I think if any race were given an exclusive right to vote and still treat other races within ethics it would be whites. Look at how much political authority we've given other groups. And this is something we did while we have absolute political authority. No one forced us. No one could. That's what absolute political authority means. We are the only racial group that decent treatment is even above 20% odds for others. But if we don't get ethical outcomes from that then I'd can race as a factor.
We already have unethical outcomes from the current selection of voters. We have disparities in who is receiving welfare and who is paying into welfare. We also have block voting on that issue which is mob violence. So we just might get more ethical outcomes with a more selective vote.
The other possible reason to consider race is when considering the purpose of a nation. I'm not a statist, but the statist eighth of my brain does consider what states are made for. In every other part of the world the self admitted purpose of a state is to advance the interests of a people.
Take a look at the current Russian conflict. There are so many ways that western media has attacked the legitimacy of Russias actions. But the one area that has been acknowledged from the beginning is that Russia has a concern over the interests of those with the same ethno-linguistic identity as them even across borders. Why isn't the basis of that under attack by western media? Because anyone who covers geopolitics understands this is a normal way of thinking for any country that isn't the US or Europe. For most of the world this is what a state power is.
Basically if states have any legitimacy they derive their authority from the corporate rights of groups of people, to have a state power that represents them in a world of state powers that don't. They don't derive their legitimacy or authority from the existence of borders. Borders are an end consequence of states existing, so they can't be the initiating moral force behind states having legitimate power.
So then if the existence of a state is moral (I don't know that it is), but if it is, it is in seeking the interests of the people who established that state. So then if you need to poll what those people want a racial vote makes sense. That said it is moral that in seeking positive virtue that negative virtue is avoided. Feeding the homeless is positive. Violently robbing people to get the money for it is not. The established purpose of a state, and thus its claimed positive virtue is seeking the interests of a self-identified group of people. But it can't oppress others in the name of that pursuit and be a moral entity.
Now back out to the matter of voting. While I don't think anyone has a moral claim to suffrage if anyone does it is the people who are most impacted by the state. So I'd say property owners and people with criminal history might be able to claim a moral right to vote above others. Besides people with criminal histories are the most likely people to know how our system is broken. You should probably consider their vote before that system breaks further and you find yourself in the same classification for entirely stupid reasons. And property owners need to vote so they don't just get robbed by the mob.
For me should is a tough question. See I don't think anyone should be voting depending on what the vote is on because a mob should not have control of what is not theirs.
The WEF plans to roll out "stakeholder capitalism". It's interesting to note that rule by money "capitalism" has replaced what was previously labeled "free enterprise".
They can't allow the notion of "free"-dom in free enterprise to compete with their corporate "king"-dom's.
The "mob" can vote, and it's obvious to everyone that they rarely get what they ask for; if ever.
The solution to this is to eliminate "representatives" and bring back the concept of"delegates", who are delegated to act on behalf of those who voted for them, and are subjected to direct and transparent recall; if they vote in direct opposition of their delegated mandate(~$~) ( <= Note: I tried to put a strikeout the parenthetical "$" symbol. Is this possible?)
The system was fundamentally sabotaged in America when "they" replaced delegates with representatives.
Senators were elected delegates of the local delegates in state govt, and representatives were delegates of the people of a state. They both had the principal interests of the people of their state as their mandates.
I agree that republicanism is what makes it so democracy doesn't even do what it claims to do. Democracy as a system has problems and it has strengths. And it seems like republicanism just eliminates all of the strengths. If 80% of the population want some drugs legalized republicanism introduces a very high probability that will never happen. And it adds at minimum a pretty consistent and predictable negative of corruption. I don't even know that republicanism even truly addresses the short comings of democracy. It just obscures them.
The classic argument is that pure democracy would see the poor simply vote themselves the wealth of the rich immediately. It seems like that can still happen. If a politician answers to the people and that's what the people would vote for themselves wouldn't he just do that to gain popularity? The argument that he wouldn't seems to imply that the wealthy would be buying off the politician. Is the only way republicanism prevents the issue just an admission that it will operate on corruption and be dictated by fundraising over the people's will (right or wrong)?
But to your suggestion wouldn't delegates create the same problem? Is the only difference the period of term? It seems a bit like prime-ministers. Someone could argue prime ministers are better than presidents and so re-callable delegates might be better than congress-men. But isn't it only by a hair? I think we still end up with 90% of the same flaws.
Why not small scale direct democracy? If the delegate is supposed to vote how you would why not guarantee it by voting ourselves? I like the Lichtenstein model where you have all three forms of government. You have a legislature to propose votes. You have people voting directly. And you have a king to overrule if anything truly insane happens. Add a layer of constitutionalism that prevents democracy deciding over maters that shouldn't even be on the table, and we've got pretty much the best system (IMO) that a state could take.
Too bad such a good system isn't expansionary. Of course a system that lacks a caste of power hungry miscreants rarely is.
Delegates had obligations akin to fiduciary responsibility, as a delegate has a legal obligation to act on behalf of the mandate of another. Delegating authority indicates the person is acting directly on your behalf, and not their own interests.
Representatives aren't constrained to vote any particular way. They're as a member of a larger group; "representing" the group.
Delegate. A person who is appointed, authorized, del-egated or commissioned to act in the stead of another. Land v. Pacific Atlantic S. S. Co., D.C.Wash., 30 F.Supp. 538, 539. Transfer of authority from one to another. A person to whom affairs are committed by another.
A person elected or appointed to be a member of a representative assembly. Usually spoken of one sent to a special or occasional assembly or convention. Person selected by a constituency and authorized to act for it at a party or State political convention.
As a verb, it means to transfer authority from one
person to another; to empower one to perform a task in behalf of another, e.g. , a landlord may delegate his agent to collect rents. See also Delegable duty; Delegation.
See page 462 of Black's Law dictionary 6th Ed.
Representative. A person or thing that represents, or stands for, a number or class of persons or things, or that in some way corresponds to, stands for, replaces, or is equivalent to, another person or thing. Gaffney v. Unit Crane & Shovel Corp., D.C.Pa., 117 F.Supp. 490,
491. One who represents others or another in a special capacity, as an agent, and term is interchangeable with "agent". Sunset Mill & Grain Co. v. Anderson, 39
Ca1.2d 773, 249 P.2d 24, 27.
A person chosen by the people to represent their
several interests in a legislative body; e.g. representative elected to serve in Congress from a state congressional district.
"Representative" includes an agent, an officer of a
corporation or association, and a trustee, executor or
administrator of an estate, or any other person empowered to act for another. U.C.C. ยง 1-201(35). See also Agent; Class or representative action; Legal representative.
See page 1302 of Black's Law dictionary 6th Ed.
Neither see also statements included in the legal definitions of "representative" or "delegate" reference the other. However, these terms have been equivocated, so people don't recognize the difference.
If you have any doubts, then consider the fact that they amended the Constitution to make this change.
That makes sense in terms of civil law / common law. But I don't see a practical way that someone can be a delegate of many people simultaneously and not have the latitude to vote however they want and claim it represents the interests of someone who delegated them. I agree that delegate and representative have different definitions on paper but what matters are the mechanisms of enforcement of those definitions. If citizens have mostly the same tools for managing either their delegates or representatives then they end up functionally the same thing.
That's why it sounds to me like recall-ability seems like the only functional difference. And I'm for it. I think that would be an improvement if they were always in jeopardy of losing their position instead of only having one window they have significant time to prepare for and can marshal money behind.
So yeah, huge improvement. But I still think most of the things I dislike about representative democracy would still be there. They are politicians after all. They obviously have some interest in seeking the position and so will act on their own views. They will be in a position of power able to impact a lot of people so there will be people interested in buying them. They have insecurity in their position (even more so now) and so need resources to push to keep their position (competitively) so they need the money of people willing to buy them.
You could say that's not how a true delegate behave if they are acting under the legal definition of a delegate. But it is what one would do given the game set up for them. There are snots in our society who would like to play that game and the system would reward the ones willing to play it. Same as our current system.
But I don't see a practical way that someone can be a delegate of many people simultaneously and not have the latitude to vote however they want and claim it represents the interests of someone who delegated them.
You're arguing in favor of the largess of govt. These and these rascals shouldn't be authorized to vote for every thing that ever bill is created for.
Lawmakers are there to draft bills to create laws that benefit their constituency's delegated authority.
The standing order for delegates should be vote against anything that you aren't authorized to approve. This would amount to an institution of Ron Paul-esque delegates; where the answer is always no, unless it's repealing and eliminating laws, and/or reducing spending.
Instead of what we currently have; which is vote for every idiotic bill that the campaign bribery influenced.
There's no reason to enforce the tens of thousands of useless bureaucracies and redundant nonsense.
This simple change puts the people in charge of the govt, instead of slaves to it's highest bidders.
This also reduces the ability of blackmail corruption, because it can't be used to push through every shitty vote. One or two bad votes, and they're replaced by someone else.
I'm not. I'm just saying its a practical reality they would be given the discretion to vote yes or no on any bill presented to them. I'm just saying from a functional perspective things would be much the same as representatives. They could still easily succumb to the same forces as representatives do. I know how democratic blocks vote. They aren't going to get repealed when they should just like representatives don't lose seats when the should. And when they are it will be significantly due to other forces besides anti-corruption efforts. Same as now. So corruption would run rampant all the same.
You are still using a proxy for your vote and granting someone influence by being in the position. That will be corrupted.
Whether more or fewer bills hit the legislature is a different matter. I agree congress shouldn't be voting on this stuff. I never indicated or advocated otherwise.
I understand that you have a different intent for these delegates and how they should work. But intent and behavior are different things. What impacts behavior isn't what a philosophical pure individual writes for how a position should behave but what social mechanisms they interact with.
Constituencies aren't uniform blocks so items that "benefit their constituency's delegated authority" is not an objective thing that is black and white. Delegates could vote how they will (aligned with corruption) and claim to be pursuing that in some sense, the exact same pattern representatives use.
Here is an example. You say representatives are more corruptible than delegates, and we used to have delegates. Wasn't it delegates that transitioned themselves into being representatives? How was that beneficial to their constituency? If what you claim is true then you have proven that delegates can't be controlled and will act in their personal interest, the same as representatives.
Log in
Snark!
I would offer another important but often overlooked factor; whether the citizen is a net taxpayer or a net tax recipient.
Since the primary job of a citizen voting in a representative republic is to elect leaders who will decide how tax dollars are spent, I think it is a conflict of interest, having a perpetual class of tax recipients who get to vote for themselves to receive more tax dollars.
In an ideal world, net tax recipients would not be able to vote, but would have the option to check a box on their tax returns, which would allow them to forfeit the tax dollars they would be receiving, but in exchange, have their right to vote returned.
How would you characterize "net tax receipient"?
Is it based on? Income taxes?
Income taxes do not contribute to the running of the govt, as +99.95% of all federal income taxes collected are applied to payments if the bond holders of US Treasury bonds.
The majority of the debt incurred is applied to spending that no tax payers voted for. Instead "representatives" (previously constitutional "delegates" who are subject to recall) vote for whatever their campaign contributors demand. These contributions are generally tax-deductable, and the major $$ contributors get there money back in other ways.
Medicare and social security are both paid into a fund by each individual, which is why they're labeled "liabilities". The Federal govt owes these payments to the individuals who contributed $$ into the system.
Property taxes pay bonds issued locally for schools, etc. These are generally voted on, as municipal govts don't own the individual tax payers.
Interesting side note, the "$" symbol is a serpent coiled around a rod. Plenty of nonsense "fact checkers" dispute this fact, and they'll also tell you to go get the jab.
The serpent symbolizes wisdom, and the toxic injection is analogous to a snake bite.
Let the dead bury the dead.
A six word, and syllable, poem.
I agree. And that would also help cover someone I think shouldn't be allowed to vote. Government workers. The point of voting is to poll the citizens how they would like the government to operate, not how the governors want to govern.
But if government workers are absolute net tax recipients then your solution would bar them anyway.
What would happen if everyone's vote was proportional to the amount they pay in taxes?
Testicles. Voting should be based on testicles
Would the mass impact the weight of the vote?
Ym..yes
Sorry, short essay here.
For me should is a tough question. See I don't think anyone should be voting depending on what the vote is on because a mob should not have control of what is not theirs. And as a system I don't think democracy works all that great. Of course a lot of other systems have flaws too, but I don't think democracy is some special system devoid of flaws that justifies other systems being overlooked. It isn't a given. So should be able to vote implies that we should have a democracy which I think isn't a given.
But being the progressive deontological anarcho capitalist that I am I do believe in improving the system we've got. So then the question isn't a moral one because it won't be moral in any case. It is what will get us better outcomes.
I think we'd get better outcomes if we had more assessing the candidates professional and intellectual qualifications rather than the likability of the candidate. So I'd select anything that I think would have even a slight bias toward thinking that way. So I'd say IQ, Age, Sex, and Race.
Now if we see bad outcomes from some of those I'd re-nig on any of them. I think if any race were given an exclusive right to vote and still treat other races within ethics it would be whites. Look at how much political authority we've given other groups. And this is something we did while we have absolute political authority. No one forced us. No one could. That's what absolute political authority means. We are the only racial group that decent treatment is even above 20% odds for others. But if we don't get ethical outcomes from that then I'd can race as a factor.
We already have unethical outcomes from the current selection of voters. We have disparities in who is receiving welfare and who is paying into welfare. We also have block voting on that issue which is mob violence. So we just might get more ethical outcomes with a more selective vote.
The other possible reason to consider race is when considering the purpose of a nation. I'm not a statist, but the statist eighth of my brain does consider what states are made for. In every other part of the world the self admitted purpose of a state is to advance the interests of a people.
Take a look at the current Russian conflict. There are so many ways that western media has attacked the legitimacy of Russias actions. But the one area that has been acknowledged from the beginning is that Russia has a concern over the interests of those with the same ethno-linguistic identity as them even across borders. Why isn't the basis of that under attack by western media? Because anyone who covers geopolitics understands this is a normal way of thinking for any country that isn't the US or Europe. For most of the world this is what a state power is.
Basically if states have any legitimacy they derive their authority from the corporate rights of groups of people, to have a state power that represents them in a world of state powers that don't. They don't derive their legitimacy or authority from the existence of borders. Borders are an end consequence of states existing, so they can't be the initiating moral force behind states having legitimate power.
So then if the existence of a state is moral (I don't know that it is), but if it is, it is in seeking the interests of the people who established that state. So then if you need to poll what those people want a racial vote makes sense. That said it is moral that in seeking positive virtue that negative virtue is avoided. Feeding the homeless is positive. Violently robbing people to get the money for it is not. The established purpose of a state, and thus its claimed positive virtue is seeking the interests of a self-identified group of people. But it can't oppress others in the name of that pursuit and be a moral entity.
Now back out to the matter of voting. While I don't think anyone has a moral claim to suffrage if anyone does it is the people who are most impacted by the state. So I'd say property owners and people with criminal history might be able to claim a moral right to vote above others. Besides people with criminal histories are the most likely people to know how our system is broken. You should probably consider their vote before that system breaks further and you find yourself in the same classification for entirely stupid reasons. And property owners need to vote so they don't just get robbed by the mob.
The WEF plans to roll out "stakeholder capitalism". It's interesting to note that rule by money "capitalism" has replaced what was previously labeled "free enterprise".
They can't allow the notion of "free"-dom in free enterprise to compete with their corporate "king"-dom's.
The "mob" can vote, and it's obvious to everyone that they rarely get what they ask for; if ever.
The solution to this is to eliminate "representatives" and bring back the concept of"delegates", who are delegated to act on behalf of those who voted for them, and are subjected to direct and transparent recall; if they vote in direct opposition of their delegated mandate(~$~) ( <= Note: I tried to put a strikeout the parenthetical "$" symbol. Is this possible?)
The system was fundamentally sabotaged in America when "they" replaced delegates with representatives.
Senators were elected delegates of the local delegates in state govt, and representatives were delegates of the people of a state. They both had the principal interests of the people of their state as their mandates.
I agree that republicanism is what makes it so democracy doesn't even do what it claims to do. Democracy as a system has problems and it has strengths. And it seems like republicanism just eliminates all of the strengths. If 80% of the population want some drugs legalized republicanism introduces a very high probability that will never happen. And it adds at minimum a pretty consistent and predictable negative of corruption. I don't even know that republicanism even truly addresses the short comings of democracy. It just obscures them.
The classic argument is that pure democracy would see the poor simply vote themselves the wealth of the rich immediately. It seems like that can still happen. If a politician answers to the people and that's what the people would vote for themselves wouldn't he just do that to gain popularity? The argument that he wouldn't seems to imply that the wealthy would be buying off the politician. Is the only way republicanism prevents the issue just an admission that it will operate on corruption and be dictated by fundraising over the people's will (right or wrong)?
But to your suggestion wouldn't delegates create the same problem? Is the only difference the period of term? It seems a bit like prime-ministers. Someone could argue prime ministers are better than presidents and so re-callable delegates might be better than congress-men. But isn't it only by a hair? I think we still end up with 90% of the same flaws.
Why not small scale direct democracy? If the delegate is supposed to vote how you would why not guarantee it by voting ourselves? I like the Lichtenstein model where you have all three forms of government. You have a legislature to propose votes. You have people voting directly. And you have a king to overrule if anything truly insane happens. Add a layer of constitutionalism that prevents democracy deciding over maters that shouldn't even be on the table, and we've got pretty much the best system (IMO) that a state could take.
Too bad such a good system isn't expansionary. Of course a system that lacks a caste of power hungry miscreants rarely is.
Delegates had obligations akin to fiduciary responsibility, as a delegate has a legal obligation to act on behalf of the mandate of another. Delegating authority indicates the person is acting directly on your behalf, and not their own interests.
Representatives aren't constrained to vote any particular way. They're as a member of a larger group; "representing" the group.
Delegate. A person who is appointed, authorized, del-egated or commissioned to act in the stead of another. Land v. Pacific Atlantic S. S. Co., D.C.Wash., 30 F.Supp. 538, 539. Transfer of authority from one to another. A person to whom affairs are committed by another.
A person elected or appointed to be a member of a representative assembly. Usually spoken of one sent to a special or occasional assembly or convention. Person selected by a constituency and authorized to act for it at a party or State political convention.
As a verb, it means to transfer authority from one
person to another; to empower one to perform a task in behalf of another, e.g. , a landlord may delegate his agent to collect rents.
See also Delegable duty; Delegation.
See page 462 of Black's Law dictionary 6th Ed.
Representative. A person or thing that represents, or stands for, a number or class of persons or things, or that in some way corresponds to, stands for, replaces, or is equivalent to, another person or thing. Gaffney v. Unit Crane & Shovel Corp., D.C.Pa., 117 F.Supp. 490,
491. One who represents others or another in a special capacity, as an agent, and term is interchangeable with "agent". Sunset Mill & Grain Co. v. Anderson, 39
Ca1.2d 773, 249 P.2d 24, 27.
A person chosen by the people to represent their
several interests in a legislative body; e.g. representative elected to serve in Congress from a state congressional district.
"Representative" includes an agent, an officer of a
corporation or association, and a trustee, executor or
administrator of an estate, or any other person empowered to act for another. U.C.C. ยง 1-201(35).
See also Agent; Class or representative action; Legal representative.
See page 1302 of Black's Law dictionary 6th Ed.
Neither see also statements included in the legal definitions of "representative" or "delegate" reference the other. However, these terms have been equivocated, so people don't recognize the difference.
If you have any doubts, then consider the fact that they amended the Constitution to make this change.
That makes sense in terms of civil law / common law. But I don't see a practical way that someone can be a delegate of many people simultaneously and not have the latitude to vote however they want and claim it represents the interests of someone who delegated them. I agree that delegate and representative have different definitions on paper but what matters are the mechanisms of enforcement of those definitions. If citizens have mostly the same tools for managing either their delegates or representatives then they end up functionally the same thing.
That's why it sounds to me like recall-ability seems like the only functional difference. And I'm for it. I think that would be an improvement if they were always in jeopardy of losing their position instead of only having one window they have significant time to prepare for and can marshal money behind.
So yeah, huge improvement. But I still think most of the things I dislike about representative democracy would still be there. They are politicians after all. They obviously have some interest in seeking the position and so will act on their own views. They will be in a position of power able to impact a lot of people so there will be people interested in buying them. They have insecurity in their position (even more so now) and so need resources to push to keep their position (competitively) so they need the money of people willing to buy them.
You could say that's not how a true delegate behave if they are acting under the legal definition of a delegate. But it is what one would do given the game set up for them. There are snots in our society who would like to play that game and the system would reward the ones willing to play it. Same as our current system.
You're arguing in favor of the largess of govt. These and these rascals shouldn't be authorized to vote for every thing that ever bill is created for.
Lawmakers are there to draft bills to create laws that benefit their constituency's delegated authority.
The standing order for delegates should be vote against anything that you aren't authorized to approve. This would amount to an institution of Ron Paul-esque delegates; where the answer is always no, unless it's repealing and eliminating laws, and/or reducing spending.
Instead of what we currently have; which is vote for every idiotic bill that the campaign bribery influenced.
There's no reason to enforce the tens of thousands of useless bureaucracies and redundant nonsense.
This simple change puts the people in charge of the govt, instead of slaves to it's highest bidders.
This also reduces the ability of blackmail corruption, because it can't be used to push through every shitty vote. One or two bad votes, and they're replaced by someone else.
Problem solved.
I'm not. I'm just saying its a practical reality they would be given the discretion to vote yes or no on any bill presented to them. I'm just saying from a functional perspective things would be much the same as representatives. They could still easily succumb to the same forces as representatives do. I know how democratic blocks vote. They aren't going to get repealed when they should just like representatives don't lose seats when the should. And when they are it will be significantly due to other forces besides anti-corruption efforts. Same as now. So corruption would run rampant all the same.
You are still using a proxy for your vote and granting someone influence by being in the position. That will be corrupted.
Whether more or fewer bills hit the legislature is a different matter. I agree congress shouldn't be voting on this stuff. I never indicated or advocated otherwise.
I understand that you have a different intent for these delegates and how they should work. But intent and behavior are different things. What impacts behavior isn't what a philosophical pure individual writes for how a position should behave but what social mechanisms they interact with.
Constituencies aren't uniform blocks so items that "benefit their constituency's delegated authority" is not an objective thing that is black and white. Delegates could vote how they will (aligned with corruption) and claim to be pursuing that in some sense, the exact same pattern representatives use.
Here is an example. You say representatives are more corruptible than delegates, and we used to have delegates. Wasn't it delegates that transitioned themselves into being representatives? How was that beneficial to their constituency? If what you claim is true then you have proven that delegates can't be controlled and will act in their personal interest, the same as representatives.