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 think this in a very true statement, and something I can clearly see effected how our founding fathers laid out of country. This seems to be talking about the system of parliament in London, which contained representatives that were from London. These representatives were supposed to represent the entire british empire, but they obviously could not. How could someone from London properly understand the needs of the population in New York City or Bombay in India. Montesquieu's idea to have representatives elected from each area of an empire is a good one, because no one can truly understands they needs of a region than someone from there. I believe that discussions of public policies best take place in an area where everyone is informed, and have mutual respect. As a generalization, I think a legislative body often has these characteristics. However, in today's Congress, I'm not so sure.
ReplyDelete2. If I'm understanding this comment correctly, it is saying that al people must vote. I think this is important. Everyone ought to vote, I feel. Nothing mades me more angry when people do not vote. However I understand how it might offend some people to be forced to do anything, even if it is to vote. I think that is why Montesquieu calls it defective, because people will naturally push back against it. Thus I understand why in practice it is not a smart idea.
1. I completely agree with his assertion. It makes sense that each village or town should have it's own representative chosen by the people for two reasons. The first reason is that choosing someone from the general body wouldn't be beneficial since that person would not know all the details about each and every village so they wouldn't know what to do and what not to do. The second reason is that by letting the people of the village or town choose the representative, you are making sure that the people are satisfied and content with the way their small government is functioning. However, this could be deleterious considering that someone may be bribing the people to vote for them or also the people may lack knowledge on what a good government is. In my opinion, each section or area of a country should be responsible for the laws in their own area. When it comes to things such as speed limits, curfews, and etc it should be relative to each section or state. However when it comes to things like massacre, theft, and any other obvious laws it should be national.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with this assertion. Democracy does make people think they have a say and that their voice matters while Aristocracy is something where an elite is chosen and the people dont really have the opportunity to make a difference. I dont quite agree that this method is defective, it seems to work for the US considering we are one of the superpowers of the world and this form of government has proven to be beneficial.
1. The idea of a Republican state that Montesquieu proposes, provides both practical and philosophical benefit. It preserves the fundamental principles of Democracy, while solving the logistical difficulties inherent in a Democratic system imposed on a large scale. The best place for the discussion of public policies is within the area that the individuals taking part in the discussion have experienced or are capable of understanding.
ReplyDelete2. Montesquieu asserts that a single individual within the democratic system is incapable of making a difference with their opinion. However, he fails to account for influence. One individual's vote is far more powerful when they hold influence.
1. I agree with the above text. No person is better fit to create and alter public policy than the people themselves. It does not make sense to choose representatives from the general population. Selecting people to fulfill legislative positions should be based on who has the most experience with the specific area. The only people who can truly understand what is best for a community are those living in the community.
ReplyDelete2.I agree with this statement as well. Voting is a natural right that everyone should take advantage. This statement is stating the all people "must" vote. This takes a way a persons ability to their own choice, however, i feel it is necessary for everyone to vote. I personally cant stand when someone feels they do not need to vote but will then complain about the problems with our country. Forcing everyone to vote creates a greater variety of opinions.
1. I think that Montesquieu is trying to distinguish that in each specific place, people have different wants and interests, so the people of the respective communities should elect representatives from there. This will ensure that the elected members will tend to the specific interests of that place. I think this is a good idea, so members of government will keep only the best interest of their specific state in mind, not other states. Therefore, the discussion of public policy best takes place in the specific location of where the discussion affects.
ReplyDelete2. I think that suffrage is natural to democracy, and it is made to benefit the country. Montesquieu says this method is defective, but legislators attempt to control and change voting. I do not agree that suffrage is ineffective, because voting has been effective and extremely important in the United States.
I agree with Montesquieu in the sense that it would make most sense to have a legislature in charge only if they themselves have been inhabitants of that particular area. If they have lived on that land and have been a part of that community, they will have an understanding and relationship with the people of that area. It is important for the legislature to feel the needs of the people and understand or relate to the issues in that community. However, it would be unwise to have a common person or an inexperienced person take charge simply because they know the community best. It is most wise to have a person who is on a more experienced level politically, but also will resolve the problems of the people because they have a full understanding and experience with that particular community. I feel that this would work best and is seen most often with something like a person running for mayor of their town. Most often, they have some political experience and will work efficiently, but also has experience living in that community.
ReplyDeleteI think that Montesquieu is saying that when people are being forced to vote by "the lot" it is defective because they are not actually voting for their choice of candidate. I agree with Montesquieu in that it is important to have a voice in voting and I can see why the other method is defective.
I think its an interesting idea that has certainly been applied to modern American political society. Electing representatives close to the life source of a community allows them to have a better grasp of how to serve that society. In addition, since these representatives are elected by the inhabitants directly, they will be held accountable for their actions. In addition, Montesquieu asserts the people are not educated or wise enough to elect truly effective representatives. I think the discussion of public policies should be a mix of local and country wide representatives. People are educated enough to elect representatives for themselves as long as there is some greater supervision.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Montesquieu makes an interesting assertion about suffrage and doing it by lot. It is defective to some degree however I do believe that people make up their own mind and are not necessarily swayed by the majority.
1) I agree with Montesquieu in the sense that people need to be represented by those who share the same ideas as themselves. In the American political system, we have elected officials that are on the county, state, and national level, which help us to be represented at each level of government. The policy should be discussed where the legislation would have the largest impact, in order to tend to the needs of those most affected by it.
ReplyDelete2) Again, I'd have to agree with Montesquieu. While I fully support and promote voting, many people do not vote because they agree with someones policies that may/may not better themselves but instead vote for someone they "like" which is defective to some degree.