So think the average (uninformed, stupid) Joe should be able to have a direct voice in national policy (See the Mocksavvy "Boob" thread), but you lament the same person's vote in a presidential election?

What am I missing?

Obviously, I forgot the word YOU, right after "so." Crap.

I'm not sure where in the thread he advocated such a position.

That was the impression I got from the following exchange:

Mock: why do autonomous human beings feel it necessary to elect these representatives who, even in the most idealistic and theoretical of circumstances, can at best merely approximate their wishes?

Shonk: Excellent question. One I wish I knew the answer to.

Isn't the thrust of your (rhetorical) question that people should not have the barrier of a "representative" between them and the execution of their "wishes" (presumably their wishes on policy)?

I suppose I gave the impression that I was opposed to representative policymaking which, in fact, I am not, insofar as those appointing (and subsequently enduring the policies of) the representative(s) do so on a voluntary basis.

...but you lament the same person’s vote in a presidential election?

What am I missing?

What you're missing is the point of my post. My critique is not derived from the fact that the average Joe gets a vote, but rather that neither the average Joe nor anyone else has any incentive to be responsible in the voting booth.

And, if you read carefully, you'll note that I'm not really advocating "direct democracy" in the thread over at _mock savvy_. Rather, I'm criticizing the current paradigm, wherein individuals who would prefer not to be "represented" at all have no choice in the matter.

I don't understand how a person doesn't have an incentive to vote responsibly, though I imagine we disagree on the meaning of "responsibility."

What I do know is that adults who don't want to be represented (and don't want to be effected by the representatives of others) have an option: leave. Or maybe start a revolution.

But, of course, no one does that. These malcontents continue to travel on public roads and generally enjoy the economic, legal, and military benefits of governments. In free society like ours, that amounts to "acceptance by performance" of the American social contract.

I'm not sure why a revolution would be in order if your "acceptance by performance" observation were in fact true, and I seem to recall the last major attempt at secession ending in a nice, big, bloody war.

Well, it was a contracts metaphor, and it is limited. But to continue it somewhat recklessly: a revolution would be the equivalent of a unilateral recession, probably based some claim that the contract had a defect. The civil war that would follow such a unilateral act by a party to the contract might be construed as an action by the Government for specific performance of the rebels' obligations. (Notice there is not court—yet—to sort this out).

If the rebels remained on land that was a part of the domain of the Government, the Government would seem to have a good justification for seeking damages (see Sherman's march to the sea, or perhaps just asking the rebel to pay for the right to Imminent Domain--a price the rebel would rarely be able to afford) and/or specific performance (forcing you to follow the law by whatever nasty means the Army would dream up). None of that is very pretty, as you suggest.

However, if the rebel were to just leave the country, he would not be actively receiving anything of value from that government, and would extinguish his obligations to it. And if you read your passport, you can achieve this by presenting yourself to a U.S. consul and renouncing your citizenship.

I don’t understand how a person doesn’t have an incentive to vote responsibly, though I imagine we disagree on the meaning of “responsibility.”

The simple answer is this: whether I vote responsibly or irresponsibly, the outcome of the election is the same, so I have no incentive to be informed or responsible. The more complicated answer is, well, more complicated (mostly in terms of verbiage), but essentially boils down to the same thing.

What I do know is that adults who don’t want to be represented (and don’t want to be effected by the representatives of others) have an option: leave. Or maybe start a revolution.

Yeah, but there's also another option: try to change the system to something more congruent with whatever one believes in. The "love it or leave it" dictum sounds real good, but it doesn't hold up if one thinks about it for a minute. Just because someone criticizes the status quo (and who doesn't) does not mean that they think any alternative would be better, but rather that certain alternatives would be better. If all currently-extant alternatives are basically the same or worse, then it makes no sense to leave. Put more concretely, I have problems with the current system, yes, but I think it's better than the system in North Korea, so I'd rather try to change what we've got than move to North Korea.

And revolution is a fine American tradition.

As for your social contract arguments, I would maintain that the "social contract" is bogus. It is and always was a bit of verbal trickery intended to circumvent supposed public goods problems. Of course, I also tend to think that public goods problems, though difficult, are not, in fact, insoluble, which might explain my mistrust of the verbal trickery.

Oh. Well then we agree on (almost) everything.

I think massive institutional governmental change (wow, three adjectives--as Sef would say, that "makes my teeth hurt") has indeed been an American tradition, which is a testament to the virtuous flexibility of representative democracy. So if it's change you want, go for it. I am not a "love it or leave it" guy, because you don't have to love it in its current form, with all of its hideous warts. But I think if someone really didn't believe in representative democracy, and that all governments would be incapable of comprehending the will of citizens, then he would probably be better served elsewhere. Which begs the question, I guess.

What's the feasible alternative?

And that is probably a question for another time and place.

I won't bother resuscitating my anti-citizenship idea for those who haven't read it, but suffice it to say if your problem is being represented (or, said more properly, ruled) by those who can "at best only approximate [your] wishes" then no government nor governmental system is going to do you a damn bit of good. Please note that this point is not the same thing as advocating anarchy.

no government nor governmental system is going to do you a damn bit of good.

Very true.