Why do we elect representatives?

There is a basic element of modern democracies that is almost never questioned: why do we elect people to represent us? At first sight, the answer seems obvious. We can't all go and sit in parliament, nor would we want to; so we elect people to represent us to do that job for us. But is it really as simple as that? Why, for example, are we forced to have someone represent us? If I chose to attend parliament, why shouldn't I? Admittedly, my vote in parliament shouldn't carry the same weight as someone who represented thousands of others, but why can't I represent myself? Why can't I choose to be represented for some decisions, but cast my vote personally on issues about which I feel strongly?

Historically, representation by a single, literate, educated person of thousands of voters made sense. When a large proportion of the population couldn't read, it made sense that someone capable of reading legislation should be elected to look after their interests, but we have had a highly literate population for a long time now. 

When the only way to conduct government was to convene to a central location because physical presence was required to vote, to discuss, to canvass, representation by a single person made perfect sense; but this is no longer the case. A common physical location is no longer a requirement for discussion, information dissemination, or decision making. Parliament can be as big as we choose.

It might be argued that the point of electing representatives was to ensure that the will of the people was represented, that the reason some people were elected in favour of others was that they more closely represented the opinions of the voters of the electorate. But isn't there a simpler and much more accurate way of ensuring that the opinions of the people are heard? A statistically relevant random selection of citizens is far more likely to lead to expressions of the popular will than any complicated chicanery involving political parties and systems of voting. Every four years, we should select, at random, citizens to fulfil political service. 

Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, consider that we already use this system to make decisions which are of far more importance than most of the decisions taken in parliament. We readily accept that a jury of a mere twelve citizens, selected at random and with no special training, should make decisions which immediately affect the lives, livelihoods, and safety of their fellow citizens. What is more, almost all legal experts continue to insist that trial by jury is the best and safest method of ensuring there is justice in our land. Why should politics be any different? We trust juries to make decisions which range from complex financial cases, through involved forensic tangles, to murder and treason. There are simply no more important decisions made than those we trust to juries. Our political system deserves the same high standard of impartial diligence.

I will discuss a proposed mechanism for selection, preparation, and administration of a polity comprising randomly selected citizens in a later post.  I will also elaborate a mechanism to allow citizens who are not selected for parliamentary duty to participate in all parliamentary voting without compromising the rights of citizens who prefer a representative as a proxy. For this step, it is enough to state that our parliament should be populated with citizens selected in the same way as jury panels are. All citizens should be prepared to serve in parliament for four years as a civic responsibility.