So many, on both the right and left misunderstand the reason behind democratic procedures that I feel the need to say a little bit on the topic.

First, let me address those on the right who are already getting ready to add a comment saying "we are not a democracy we are a constitutional republic". That argument is akin to saying "that is not a mammal, it is a dog". A constitutional republic is a specific form of government, which incorporates some form of democratic voting. The word "democracy" does not in all contexts denote a direct participatory democracy, as those objecting seem to think. A constitutional republic is a democratic form of government, and thus is a democracy, just as a direct participatory democracy is. So it is not wrong to refer to our government as a democracy. It is a democracy, but it is a constitutional republic rather than a direct participatory democracy. So this is not a valid objection*.

However, that error is not my primary focus here, just something I had to get out of the way before getting to my main point. My primary point is that many seem to think that the founders instituted democracy out of some belief that the will of the people would eventually move the government in the correct direction, which is just not true.

We can hear echoes of this absurd theory in the claims that banks should be regulated or the environment protected or the war ended "because the people want it", with the implication that majority will is the measure of truth. It is a bizarre claim to hear coming from the left, as so much of their regulatory law is based on the assumption of individual incompetence, but there it is. They seem to often have a rather conflicted view of the average citizen, in his everyday life he is incompetent, but once he enters a voting booth, his collective decision is able to put the best officials in office and decide the most involved questions of policy.

However, the founders did not really believe that. They did not subscribe to this "American Idol" theory of government that the majority would inevitably make the right choice. Instead, they adopted elective processes for two reasons**, one theoretical and idealist and one very pragmatic.

The idealist argument is simple, the government is formed voluntarily by mutual agreement, so each citizen deserves a say in who shall head their mutual government. However, in practice, this argument was not that convincing. Even the more libertarian founders, such as Jefferson, often thought of limiting the vote to those holding land or meeting certain property requirements. So, the theoretical justification obviously was secondary to the practical argument.

And what was the practical argument? Very simply that regular elections allowed people to peacefully change their government without the need for violent revolution or enduring a bad government until the death of the monarch. The basic idea behind the regular rotation of offices is that anyone, even the best ruler, will not be pleasing to everyone, so, to allow every citizen the chance to change a disliked government without resorting to rebellion. And, for the same reason, popular election is the best means of choosing those to hold office, as, gaining the majority of votes, the office holder selected will be pleasing to at least a majority of citizens.

I admit it doesn't sound very enlightened, and it isn't very romantic, but the basic reason we vote people into office is to remove the need to remove them through revolt.

Now, some will object that the founders did intend for election to move us gradually toward ever improving government. They will point to the first amendment's protection of speech as an argument that people, given time and information, will choose better and better officials.

But that argument is actually not so much about elections themselves, but for the 10th amendment. Elections themselves are no guarantee of improvement. What the founders thought would make for gradual, perpetual improvement was the division of the nation into many small states which could enact competing laws. People would see the effects of each law, be able to see which was best, and locally vote in those proposing similar laws. However, this relies on a number of competing systems which can be compared. In other words, it requires power be de4centralized and the role of the federal government kept minimal.

As we now have an imperial federal government, with states reduced in many aspects to mere administrative zones, this no longer applies. Without an ability to compare one law to another, the people cannot make rational decisions about the pros and cons of various laws, and so our monolithic federal government is as likely to degrade as improve due to voting.

So, voting, which may drive improvement in a federalist system, is simply reduced to an effective means of preventing revolt in our centralized, omnipotent federal government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* For that matter, we are not just a "constitutional republic" we are also a representative democracy, a federal republic, a democracy with universal citizen suffrage, a federation of sovereign states, and on and on. To pick one description of specific features and claim that is the only valid description is absurd. Is England just a constitutional monarchy? Or is it a parliamentary democracy? A democracy? A member of a commonwealth? Every government fits many, many designations. Any one is not an exhaustive description, so to pick one to use in preference to all others is absurd.

** Obviously, the founders in their role as national legislators had no say over elections at all, as there was no federal control over elections at the time. When I speak of their beliefs, I intend to mean how each acted in their home states. The idea that the federal government has any role in election procedures is of modern provenance (starting with the 14th amendment, but with most controls being from the later half of the 20th century), so completely alien to the founders, who still saw their government as a collection of sovereign states. (While Article I Section 4 of the Constitution gives some control over elections, it is unlikely they imagined it would need to be exercised in the normal course of events, as such questions were viewed as best left to the states.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

To those who argue that politicians should still bow to popular opinion for the same reason we instituted elections, that is that we should govern by polls because otherwise we get revolts, I offer a counter argument.

The entire reason for a representative democracy is to avoid the whims of the public. If we were going to govern by poll, we could have no legislature and simply decide laws by plebiscite. We could have a monthly plebiscite, place before it a slate of proposals and find out the public will, enacting any which won a majority.

The reason we don't is because the public is given to periodic excesses of emotion. Sometimes the issue of the day will drive the public to demand unreasonable actions. The purpose of representatives is to maintain a cooler head and avoid such demands.

And, as far as revolts are concerned, it is unlikely such passions of the moment will be enough to stir people into revolt. Even if public passions over an issue caused some disorder, most such transient causes do not stir enough people for long enough to get a revolt started. For example, while public outrage over baby Jessica could have inspired the public to outlaw all well drilling in the country, it also passed quickly enough that it is hard to imagine a "Baby Jessica Revolt" taking place. It could have inspired ill-considered laws had we ruled by public opinion, but not enough to stir a revolt.