Elected Representation in America

{ link » subject article }

The United States is a constitutional republic, which

... is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. ... The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." [emphasis added]

John Adams' insightful definition illuminates the significance of elected representation in the United States. It is not, as is commonly thought, equivalent to the granting of a proxy; it is much more than such a grant. It institutionalizes our Nation's rule of law by introducing a crucial degree of separation from the mob-like tyranny of the majority.

During this tortuous, expensive, and sometimes mind-numbing election campaign, the ambitions of the candidates prevents them from reminding potential voters what the limits of their elective powers are in our constitutional republic. The overwhelming emphasis of the campaigning is to portray the individual candidate's similarities to and agreement with the electorate, as if the ideal elected representative of the people would be their genomic clone.

The elected officials' marching orders (and those of their appointees) are not to implement the perceived wishes of the majority of voters. They are, rather, to attempt to govern and lead the Nation, and by extension its citizenry, such that the Nation as a whole survives and, if possible prospers, through judicious and Constitutionally limited exercise of power. Our government officials exercise these powers until the electorate's next opportunity to exercise its own power, which is in turn Constitutionally limited to electing their representatives.

I don't think Adams' "government of laws" conceptualization is well understood by the general populace, or even by some elected officials; the latter never seem to allude to it. As for the populace, there are many of them who believe that even a protest rally, if the number of participants and number of decibels is high enough, must be a decisive influence on the targeted elected officials. This is a false presumption. Whereas elections introduce a degree of separation between the powers of the elected and those of the electorate, there is complete insulation of the government from mob influence. No power is granted to a crowd of protesters, no matter how agitated or how convinced of their righteousness they may be. The appearance of cause-and-effect, if any, is purely coincidental.

An election campaign has nothing to do with aggregating the electorate's "shopping lists" for subsequent government action. It has everything to do with elevating the candidates' leadership profiles and winning the election.