Fundamental Question Of Governance

Been a good long while since I last made a topic in the PCECH. Okay, acronyms don't quite work with it...

In any case I bring before you pinko bastards a very simple and yet incredibly important question:

Should government be run by the capable, or the popular?

Oh, and bonus question that's also pretty important:

Is the role of an elected representative that of a delegate, who does exactly what his constituency want, or that of a trustee, who does what he believes is the greater 'common good,' even if it harms his constituency in the short-term?

As this is the OP and I already bloody well know the right answers, I won't be putting my response up for a while. Might still attack you for your belief or reasoning, though, so don't half-ass it.

One final note: no mamby pamby pinko answers; whether you think these dichotomies are false or not, choose one of them and explain why, or don't post.

I'd say that in an ideal world it should be run by the capable, but in reality it is probably run by the popular. I believe that the person should be a trustee, because the greater good is good.

I chose capable. Because it bodes well with my idea of a future where governments are run by computers instead of people. Choosing someone based on popularity seems...inefficient and..primitive.

Government should be run by who the people want it to be run by.

Ahem. This is a two-parter. Only one person has responded to both.

I'm a Technocrat first and foremost. As such I believe in governance by system and function.
So the capable.

As to the second part. Naturally if I wanted someone to convey a message or preform a task, I'd want them to follow my every word and direction.

I wonder who that could be...

Popular rule is required for a government to have just authority. Also yes, a representative is merely a delegate.

An elected representative should be a trustee they should work towards the common good.

Government should be run by the capable. For example, Bill Gates might be more popular, but he is probably not capable of running the country. The person should work for the common good as well, even if it is not i the people's best interests, because, if he is elected based on capability, he obviously understands more than the common citizen on what is a better decision. In reality, however, people are elected more on popularity, and work more for exactly what the people want, so they can get elected.

Wouldn't somebody's popularity in the long run be based on his capability?
Unless I am misunderstanding the semantics being used of course.

Simple answer: no.

Please explain.

Definitely popular. There is no other semi-efficient way of appointing government officials that is less likely to be corrupted. Besides, it looks good in theory and on paper.

And I choose trustee, once elected, the government official doesn't have a whole lot of moral obligations. If he doesn't do what his people want, they could just vote him out next time around, so he will probably do it, while at the same time acting on his own professional judgement.

I couldn't have said it better. I also side for the capable, as long as they reflect the majority will of the electorate, and work for the betterment of society. Populist/popular politicians can at times be incredibly incapable of effective governance, steering their nations or political careers into political, economic or electoral oblivion. Case in points: Robert Mugabe, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Silvio Berlusconi, etc...all rode popular waves at one point, but I don't think anyone can seriously call them "effective leaders" today.

Grant.

In a democratic society, capability always plays second fiddle.

The capable are whom I wish would get elected, but the minds of people are much more swayed by a fancy tie and good looks than the potential and past actions of candidates. The age old saying that "Americans vote more on American Idol than in the Elections" is quite the accurate sentance.