Edmund Burke Analysis

Since the inception of representative government, the value of popular opinion within government has become one of the most debated issues of representation. Though the representatives within a government are elected to serve the people they govern, it has been debated as to whether they should serve their people by voting to serve common good or voting in favor of the opinions of their constituents. Philosopher Edmund Burke argues that an optimal representative government serves the people by voting in pursuit of the common good, not voting to support the ideas of their constituents. Furthermore, Burke asserts that by voting based on the opinion of constituents is destructive to the effectiveness of the government. In his Speech to the Electors of Bristol, Burke claims that representatives need to serve the government and common good of the country. In addition, they need to refrain from being swayed by the notions of the people that elected them. By doing this, representatives can serve the country as a whole, thus creating a more effective and efficient government. While Burke’s attack on populism does hold validity, his proposed ideal government alienates the interests of the people the government was formed to serve. Furthermore, the definition of national interest is ambiguous, and if one chooses to define it as the majority opinion of the people as a whole then Burke’s argument is debunked entirely. Obviously, the United States doesn’t heed to Burke’s notions, instead it emphasizes the opinions of the people, not the perspectives of the elected officials. However, the question becomes whose idea is more effective.   Through the lens of Burke's ideologies, the intention of representative democracy the original intent of the United States governmental system becomes clear.
As we know, Burke argues that representatives have the responsibility to vote according to their own judgments in the pursuit of the common good, rather than the judgments of the people....