What are the flaws of representative democracy?

I won't name all the flaws but the major one in my opinion (and the main reason I dislike democracy) is that all people are treated equally regarding votes, but all people aren't equal. Farmers know nothing about health policy. Doctors know nothing about Agriculture. The general public knows nothing about anything a lot of the time (except that they hate high taxes and like their buses on time). Therefore why do countries take the opinion of an expert at the same level of importance as the opinion of an ignorant? This has been recently displayed in the UK, especially regarding elections for European Members of Parliament. The general public care very little about politics (statistically). The general public can therefore be easily manipulated by various groups with their own agendas, because they cannot be bothered to check facts. Various anti-European groups in the UK were telling outright lies about the effect of the European Union on the latest recession, employment and rights. They were essentially saying "The Credit Crunch was caused by Britain's membership in the European Union and that's why you're unemployed", with no facts to back it up. Now, for people who lost their jobs in the recession; who want someone to blame, immigrants are a good scapegoat. People from older industries in particular, which are focused in the north of the country, have larger groups of non-cosmopolitan populations and more 'old-fashioned' values than populations in the south. This is how extreme right wing parties like the British National Party, get influence in society. They take advantage of vulnerable groups with savvy media campaigns and complete lies (a bit like how Michael Moore convinces people his opinions are true). This gets them votes and that gets them representation. I don't have a clue how to improve democracy. I could give theories but I'm not exactly a sociologist or economist, and I only studied Political Marketing (with a background in politics) for a semester. In essence, one theory I learnt is as follows: Voting is not economically viable. Your vote makes no difference (it's worth is zero), unless it is the deciding vote. Therefore, if people think economically, they will not vote unless there are zero barriers to entry (because the cost of voting is too high even if it's of extremely low value). Barriers include reading manifestos, watching the news and going to the polling booth on polling day (the big one). The only way to have a voting system which represented experts more than laymen would involve more barriers to entry (e.g. Aptitude Tests) and thus reduce the already disappointing turnout at elections.

The main flaw is voting for representatives instead of on issues. Unless you hire and fire your representative at will, he/she will always have the problem of not representing someone's point of view. This can be fixed. Google "A Government You Can Love"

Samuel Green and Tyrone Coupland posted particularly fine answers.  I'd like to comment on them. Green points out that all people aren't equal.  The structural problem with Representative Democracy is that we've failed to capitalize on that important fact.  Plato, if not others before him, felt democracy could not work because 'ordinary people' are 'too easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians'.  He failed to note that some folks are more easily swayed than others, and that some individuals are not swayed at all.  Yet, Plato's faulty view of democracy has survived through the ages and forms the cornerstone of political thought today. The weakness in this concept is twofold.  The first is the notion that the only proper view of democracy is as a condition in which all the people make all the decisions.  The second is the failure to recognize that 'the people' is made up of many individuals: some good, some bad; some skilled, some unskilled; some with integrity, some deceitful; some brilliant, some dull; some sociable, some unfriendly; some interested in politics, some not.  The task of representative democracy is to sift through these many types of individuals and elevate those best suited to serve as advocates of the common good. Green also points out the futility of voting.  The word "voting" invokes an image of individuals visiting polls and expressing a preference for one or another of the options made available to them by political parties.  Voting is not limited to that vision; we can vote in many ways, some more powerful than the ballot. When the people vote for candidates chosen by political parties, the government is controlled, not in the voters, but by those who choose the candidates.  Voting for options provided by others does not give the people control of their government.  It is neither free nor democratic.  It is top-down, not bottom-up, and, as such, is the antithesis of democracy.  It expresses our status as subjects of those who defined our options. Thus, Green has identified two flaws in the most common current rendition of representative democracy:  Failure to capitalize on the diversity of humanity and letting select groups usurp the people's right to choose their best representatives.   Both can be corrected. Coupland describes the fallacy of listening to a minority opinion, a problem inherent in a world dominated by one-way communication and the heart of Plato's lament.  In Plato's time 'the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians' was spread by orators.  Although the technology of communication has advanced since then, its effectiveness has not improved because such communication, whether the printed word or the broadcast word, is uni-directional - from an author or an announcer to an audience.  One-way communication, unfortunately and inaccurately, assumes the author or announcer has greater knowledge than the audience.  Not only is that rarely (if ever) true, it tends to propagate the inadequacies and biases of the source. We know, intuitively, that true knowledge cannot be attained unless assertions are challenged and the underlying concepts examined.  In other words, the acquisition of knowledge requires discourse.  It is, and must be, a multi-directional undertaking. At present, our political infrastructure does not encourage public examination of public issues.  (Aside:  Unfortunately, Quora, too, offers a poor platform for discourse.  It does not encourage the detailed examination of ideas required for the thoughtful development of concepts.  If Green or Coupland were inclined to comment on this post, their comments would be buried in a way that suppresses dialogue and inhibits careful analysis.) Coupland suggests that allowing "more direct input for those who are interested in participating might create a more informed and interested populace.  That can only be a good thing."  This echoes the thought of Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre at Notre Dame University, who says: "Human beings, as the kind of creatures we are, need the internal goods that can only be acquired through participation in politics if we are to flourish." Coupland provided a list of flaws in representative democracy.  This list is worthy of study.  I'd like to suggest that some of the listed flaws are a direct result of the top-down nature of modern political systems that pass themselves off as being representative but exclude large chunks of their citizens from representation.  They result from letting political party leaders set the agendas and choose the candidates for which the people vote.  This is particularly true of Coupland's first three items. The fourth item raises the important issue of lobbying.  As Coupland says, "Polticians are not experts in all the areas they pass legislation on ...".  In a representative democracy, representatives are not required to have any special knowledge or training.  They are selected because they are believed to have the intellect and disposition to assimilate the information necessary to make sound decisions in the best interests of the people. Since laws passed by a legislative body apply to the community, we anticipate that all interested parties will present their arguments for and against pending legislation.  Our legislatures hold hearings to facilitate this presentation of information. Since the hearing rooms will not hold all the people with an interest in the matter, interested parties designate agents, called lobbyists, to present the information for them. The theory is that our representatives will weigh the information presented by lobbyists objectively, enact laws that benefit the community and reject laws that are harmful.  However, at present, it doesn't work like that.  Although hearings are held, they are for merely for show.  The actual decisions are made by our lawmakers outside the hearing room, under the influence of lobbyists. It is the free access lobbyists have to our lawmakers that defeats a very sound concept.  The lobbyists wine and dine lawmakers, provide them with exotic vacations, hire members of their family, promise them future employment and, by more subterfuges than I can relate, corrupt the people elected to represent the public interest.  The result is the cesspool we currently endure. If we are to eliminate this kind of corruption, we must deny lobbyists free access to our legislators.  Our elected representatives are in service for the length of their term - just like members of our armed forces - and like members of our armed forces, they should be maintained at a government installation.  The facilities at the installation can be as palatial as need be, with golf courses, marinas, and all forms of educational and entertainment facilities, but access to the facility should be restricted.  Those wishing to affect pending legislation should present their arguments, publicly, in hearing rooms provided for the purpose - and that should be the absolute limit of their personal contact with our elected representatives. Do we have the stomach for such a solution?  We sequester juries in important cases.  Should the conduct of our government be deemed less worthy of objectivity? Coupland seems to favor direct democracy, but he's also aware of its shortcomings.  I wonder if, he would consider conceiving a 'different' approach to selecting representatives.  Dr. Jane Mansbridge, in a paper titled, "A 'Selection Model' of Political Representation", said: "As a general rule, the higher the probability that the objectives of principal and agent may be aligned, the more efficient it is for the principal to invest resources ex ante, in selecting the required type, rather than ex post, in monitoring and sanctioning.  If these objectives are well aligned, citizens will be better served by a constituent-representative relationship based primarily on selection than by one based primarily on monitoring and sanctions.  From a normative perspective, the selection model also tends to focus the attention of both citizens and representatives on the common interest." It should not be too difficult for thoughtful people to conceive a political process that lets every member of the community participate in the selection of representatives whose objectives are aligned with their own. My comments have reached an unseemly length, and, as I said, Quora is a poor platform for a detailed examination of complex issues.  Suffice it to say, Representative Democracy, a bottom-up concept, has been forestalled by a top-down political mechanism. If anyone can suggest an open forum where a careful, detailed study of this problem can thrive, please let me know. Fred

Flaw #1: The people elect their representatives by casting their votes on a symbol, usually that of a political party. This is based on two assumptions viz. political parties are inevitable in a Democracy and that the common people/illiterates need a symbol to facilitate their voting. The second assumption presumes that the common people cannot judge the candidates on their own, thus underestimating the average voter's wisdom. Flaw #2: The political parties have thrived on this dependency of Democracy on them and have also found the method of voting on a symbol, convenient to woo the voters and develop 'vote-banks'. Vote banks are largely responsible for perpetuating the polarization of the society on caste, class, communal and racial lines. Flaw #3: The voter is not forced to individually evaluate the candidate he or she is going to vote for. Following the herd and voting on a symbol without knowing the candidate has become the norm. This enables election campaigns based on glam and rhetoric to become all powerful. Flaw #4: The candidates need not rely on their individual merits for getting votes. There is always the party symbol and the party leaders to bank upon at the time of elections. Flaw #5: Political success is determined by skills of dubious nature like capacity for background manipulations. Honesty and true merit do not make much electoral sense in a party-based political system. Flaw #6: The stability of the government depends on the ruling party/alliance holding together its members. Dissent based on rational argument is discouraged. Issuing a whip to the members at the time of voting in the elected house is the most blatant evidence for this. Flaw #7: The elected representative need not apply himself to solving the problems of the people of his constituency to retain their goodwill; of more importance is whether he is able to please the superiors in the party and be in tune with the party-line of thinking. Every one of these flaws is rectified in a party-less system of governance as explained http://musingsonpartylessgovernance.blogspot.in/2006/10/ideal-governance-is-within-reach.html.

Democracy is a good idea, but it is fallible, like every other idea. We only whine about it because it's the one we've got. People from non-democratic countries crave it like nothing else. No system can make everyone happy, and this goes for democracy too. Having said that, I think the primary fallacy behind the idea is that it assumes (perhaps not directly) that the majority is right and deserves more attention. There is nothing that goes towards proving that a single opposing voice may never be right about something while everyone else may be wrong. The rule of majority often helps morally and ethically questionable conventions to become socially acceptable.