Post by jabinkhatun908 on Feb 25, 2024 1:03:35 GMT -5
Populist Dependence on a Leader is Completely Absent From This Model. But Like Populists Lotocrats Often Harbor a Deep Suspicion of Political Elites. In This Sense the Oxford English Dictionary S Definition of Populism Also Fits the Lotcratic Model Which Aims to Appeal to Ordinary People Who Feel That Their Concerns Are Ignored by Established Elites. However for the Purposes of This Paper It is Also Important to Highlight Some Key Differences Between the Lotocratic Model and the Populist Model of Representation as the.
Incarnation of the People. From a Purely Formal Point of View the Main Difference is That in the Populist Representation Model in Which the Leader Embodies the People It is a Onetomany Relationship While in the Lotocratic Model Where a Random Selection of Germany Mobile Number List Ordinary Citizens Mirror the People It is a Manytomany Relationship. This Formal Difference Has Important Consequences. To Begin With While the Populist Claim That the Leader Embodies the People Because He or She is Like Them Can Be and Often is Challenged by Those Reflected in the Leader It is More Difficult to Challenge.
The Claim That a Random Selection of Ordinary Citizens Embody the People Because Its Members Are Like Them. This is Especially the Case When Stratification Techniques Are Used in Random Selection With the Explicit Intention of Generating a Group That Reflects the People. In Sum I Am Concerned That the Problematic Features of the Notion of Representation as the Incarnation of the People May Be Operative Within Lottocratic Conceptions but Much More Difficult to Detect Than in Populist Conceptions. No Leader Political Party or Organization Can Match the Similarity Between a Random Stratified Selection of Ordinary Citizens and the Citizenship They Reflect.
Incarnation of the People. From a Purely Formal Point of View the Main Difference is That in the Populist Representation Model in Which the Leader Embodies the People It is a Onetomany Relationship While in the Lotocratic Model Where a Random Selection of Germany Mobile Number List Ordinary Citizens Mirror the People It is a Manytomany Relationship. This Formal Difference Has Important Consequences. To Begin With While the Populist Claim That the Leader Embodies the People Because He or She is Like Them Can Be and Often is Challenged by Those Reflected in the Leader It is More Difficult to Challenge.
The Claim That a Random Selection of Ordinary Citizens Embody the People Because Its Members Are Like Them. This is Especially the Case When Stratification Techniques Are Used in Random Selection With the Explicit Intention of Generating a Group That Reflects the People. In Sum I Am Concerned That the Problematic Features of the Notion of Representation as the Incarnation of the People May Be Operative Within Lottocratic Conceptions but Much More Difficult to Detect Than in Populist Conceptions. No Leader Political Party or Organization Can Match the Similarity Between a Random Stratified Selection of Ordinary Citizens and the Citizenship They Reflect.