Representative Government

Alexander M. Goldfinger

[Reprinted from The Gargoyle, September, 1960]

Some years ago, I was the attorney in an immigration case and sought a conference with a top-level representative of the State Department of the United States government. When I was not successful in obtaining the conference in usual channels, I conferred with the United States senator from New Jersey who quickly and satisfactorily arranged the conference I sought. But that is not what I want to relate here.

In the course of my conversation with the U.S. senator, whom I had known for a number of years, I asked about some pending legislation which would vest more power and control in the Federal government and curtail individual freedom of choice. The senator frankly told me that his personal convictions were opposed to such legislation, but that the overwhelming ratio of letters and telegrams from his constituents was in favor, so he would vote in favor on a roll-call.

This led us into a philosophical discussion as to the role of an elected representative, as to whether the duty of the representative was to voice the wishes of his constituents which the elected representative deemed harmful to all citizens or to vote in accordance with his own convictions as to what is best and right.

The senator confessed that this problem weighed heavily upon him, but that he conceived his duty to be the representation of his constituents under the form of government we embrace. He cited the New England Town Meeting precedent where all policy matters were determined by a majority of the voters assembled at the meeting. The senator then commented that with our large population, such Town Meetings are not possible but that our representative form of government imposed an obligation upon the elected representative to vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of his constituents, even though, as an individual, he disagreed.

Knowing somewhat of constitutional law and the debates which preceded the adoption of our Federal Constitution, I argued with the senator that elected representatives are not supposed to act as vocal sounding boards for their constituents to be the best men available to guide the destinies of our country in accordance with the Constitution, and to do so in accord with their best judgment as to right and wrong.

An interesting side light was shed by the senator who said that when mail from his constituents was heavy concerning any pending legislation, his office staff opened the letters and segregated the "vote yes" letters from the "vote no" letters, then weighed them on a scale and the ratio of pros and cons was determined by their respective weights. Facetiously, I told the senator I would advise all those who I knew were inclined to write to him to use heavy rather than light weight paper in so doing.

The senator, although philosophically inclined to agree with me as to the duty of an elected representative, nevertheless held to his position that our form of government precluded ignoring the consensus of opinion of the electorate whether or not such be in accord with that held by the elected representative. He also informed me that most of the senators and congressmen so interpreted their duties.

I asked whether such a policy would not lead to sectionalism, that is, the consideration of what might temporarily benefit one section of the country even though it might be harmful to all the rest of the nation, I asked whether the conception of a representative's duty is influenced by the fact that elected representatives wanted to be reelected and so were currying the favor with the majority of their constituents. I asked whether much questionable legislation was enacted due to the inclination of legislators to make "deals" -- I'll vote for your measure if you'll vote for mine.

The senator did not brush away my questions; he answered truthfully that all my questions required a "yes" answer, and these meant that inevitably the country as a whole suffered detriment, but the evils were a necessary price to pay for the liberty and freedom afforded by a representative form of government.

I left the senator, sorely troubled, wondering whether the passion, the prejudice, the emotional reaction of a minority, who, influenced by their desires are tempted to write to the representatives and whose mail, by being weighed against the mail opposed to them, then are considered a majority, and so influence harmful legislation. I wondered whether a vocal minority who make their desires known may not legislate us into a dictatorship.

______________ If we had statesmen instead of passive representatives in our legislative halls, then the worry of what a vocal minority can accomplish would be less. Statesmen such as former U.S. Solicitor General, James M. Beck had in mind in his book "The Constitution of the United States" wherein he says that the framers of the Constitution believed that a representative held a judicial position of the most sacred character and that he should vote as his judgment dictated without respect to the wishes of his consituents. Or such a statesman as was the giant among political thinkers, Edmund Burke, who, as a member of Parliament, informed his constituents:

"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him' their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests each must maintain as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudice ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form a hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member (representative) for that place ought to be as far as any other from any endeavor to give it effect.

Thus spoke Edmund Burke.

What, indeed, do we seek in the qualifications of a senator or representative? Wisdom, good judgment, knowledge, ability? If what we expect is that he will register in voting only the expressed majority opinion of his constitutents, then we can install electrical computers in each congressional district, and request the voters to punch "yes" or "no" levers on the machine for their preference as to any pending legislation and have the result, certified, transmitted to a designated officer of the Congress who will then tabulate the results and announce the passage or defeat of any pending bill or resolution. This would be an extension of the Town Meeting principle and could save us millions of dollars now spent for the maintenance of our legislature.

What would we lose? Today, government like all other large institutions is complex and requires special knowledge, special skill and judgment. Our legislators, assigned as they are to committees which do most of the legislative work, become specialists in their fields and this specialized knowledge few, if any, local voters possess. This special knowledge, if properly used, can inure to the benefit of all. Thus, our legislators would be men or women of proven worth and ability, capable of using their best judgment and ethics in behalf of the nation and not solely for their constituency.

Should we take pen in hand and write to our Congressmen? Cogent reasoning or factual data in a letter which may help a legislator to more fully understand a subject is desirable. Mere exhortation to vote affirmatively or negatively is undesirable from the ethical conception. Since the legislator's mail is weighed on a scale and is not usually read by him, most mail to legislators, however carefully composed, will but serve as another statistic in the legislator's evaluation. There is little use in so writing.

What we can do, without hoping for immediate results, is to review and refresh our own knowledge of how our Constitution was framed and adopted, what we really mean by representative government, how it should function, and then try to convey to others the understanding of these principles and the dangers of law by majorities instead of law by constitutional limitations.

This will be a long and difficult task in the light of the current culture and the desire of so many for "something for nothing." But in the knowledge that the largest and brightest lights are rated by candle power, each of us as a single candle can hope to light many tapers and cast a combined candlepower so great that our progeny will be illumined and live in light instead of the darkness of fear and insecurity.