How far should the elected representatives of the people in a democracy go along with the popular choices and what is commonly expressed as the "voice of the people"? The question is whether the duly elected representatives of the people are a collection of rubber-stamp holders, mandated to approve the results of the latest public-opinion survey? If elected deputies have no other obligation but to vote in accordance with whatever the public wants at a specific point in time, then wouldn't it be cheaper and more reliable to have computers deliver that service? In such a devil's advocate scenario, the public can regularly visit the voting booths placed in central locations in every city.
The voting results can automatically be transferred at the end of each day to a central computer in the basement of the Parliament.
Then the central computer can quickly compute what the people want.
That way, every time the Parliament votes, it would be 100% guaranteed that the voting reflects what the majority of the people are thinking at any time.
Would that count as the best democracy possible on earth? At the cost of being labeled an "elitist," I'll raise the following question just for the argument's sake: What is the role of political leadership in a democracy, especially when the "public opinion" is more often than not shaped by the mass media and marketing channels and not by a sober and learned discussion of the pros and cons of the alternative policies? This is probably a discussion that goes all the way back to Aristotle's and Plato's alternative visions on the nature of the relationship between the "rulers" and the "masses.
"An easy solution does not seem to be in sight.