Are you happy with one days rule every four years?

Quote:

"One days rule every four years has very much the air of a placebo" 👎

Western Political Theory in the Face of The Future by John Dunn

Meaning:

In representative democracies, voting every four years gives people one day to feel like they’re in control of who governs them. 🗳️📆

But after that, they often have little influence on decisions until the next election.

This “one day of rule” can feel like a placebo — a way to make people feel empowered temporarily, without real ongoing influence on what actually happens.

Just like a placebo 💊doesn’t change an illness, this occasional voting day doesn’t give people much real control over daily decisions that affect their lives.

It creates the illusion of power, but once the vote is cast, people are left to watch and hope that elected leaders will represent their interests until the next election.

Quote:

"For those (the publics) whose preferences are systematically overlooked, the time that elapses between elections may be agonizingly long, and these inter-election spaces constitute the weakest link in current democracies".

Citizenship and Contemporary Direct Democracy by DAVID ALTMAN

Meaning:

Imagine you’re in a group project where everyone has different ideas about how to complete it. In a purely representative system, you get to vote on a group leader every few years.

Once chosen, this leader decides how the project is done until the next vote, without consulting the group often. If the leader overlooks your preferences or ideas, you’re stuck waiting until the next vote to possibly get someone who represents you better. This long wait is frustrating and unfair, especially if your concerns are repeatedly ignored. 🤔

In representative democracies, we vote every four years (or so) to choose leaders who are meant to represent our interests.

However, here is what most of us experience. Once elected, these leaders work within complex “corridors of power” — political systems, networks, and institutions — where various pressures and incentives inevitably shape the actions of those that are meant to represent us.

These corridors can subtly (or even blatantly) push leaders to prioritize a) their own interests, b) political gains, or c) the desires of powerful groups, rather than the needs of the people who elected them. That's when it all falls down in terms of the people they are MEANT to represent.

Because we only get to vote occasionally, leaders may feel less accountable to us in the interim, allowing these “perverse interests” to take hold. This setup can encourage behaviour that serves those in power, not the broader public, undermining the democratic ideals we expect from our representatives.

In contrast, a system like Switzerland’s direct democracy is more like having regular group check-ins where everyone gets to voice their input on key decisions.

This way, each person’s ideas can be addressed more directly and frequently. Simple!