Perhaps we should try a democracy?

[SoutherDem]

No, I am not making a ironic jab at congress and the president. I am serious!

We DON"T have a democracy, we have a republic.

We elect a person to fill a job, the whole nation gets to vote on one president, each state gets to vote on two senators and each district get to vote on one representative. Once they are in office they swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution, but how they do that is up to them. Despite what some say they are not required to vote the will of the people that sent them to office. They are to vote their conscience, convictions, or whatever you wish to call it but they are NOT required to ever listen to one word spoken by those who elected them. Sounds, good right, we choose good people we get good decisions. Our only recourse come every two, four or six years when we once again get to vote on who will be making the decisions and unfortunately the American people have very short memories. We forget about what they have done, and we keep voting in the same jokers over and over.

We DO need a new amendment to the constitution, but it needs to be one that on some subjects we have a direct vote. Let the elected official vote on the big things like declaring next Wednesday Cucumber Day, but those mundane matters such as the Debt Ceiling let that go before the entire nation. I know we would be taking a risk, I mean I know we have some real crackpots in this country, but think of the things which may happen. Based on polls I have read, if the American public voted the same way in those elections as they did the polls, we would be out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, we would have gay marriage, we would have real abortion right, and the debt ceiling issue would be solved, while social security, medicare, medicaid would all be secure and the rich and many major corporation would be feeling that belt tighten in the same way we middle class have been feeling it for the last 30 years. Of course to make this work we would need to modify one of those pesky amendments in the bill of rights, The first amendment would need to state that free speech for the press is only legitimate press which reports both sides fairly without bias, not things like Faux News which is just the propaganda machine for the extreme right, and free speech is granted only to those who are living human beings, not corporations.

Look at it this way at least if major corporation wanted to buy votes we would all be getting paid.

[Drale]

1. I think we would have the same problem we have now

and thats getting people out to vote.

[brooklynite]

3. Thanks for a great joke to lighten the tension...

Seriously, you think the average voter is (or wants to be) informed enough to vote on major issues?

Think about how smoothly it works in California.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. I don't think it would be as good as it sounds

Look at ballot initiatives like Prop 8.

Someone with a lot of money can buy a lot of ad time and get a majority to vote for just about anything.

It might be more democratic, but the public is so quickly and easily swayed that I don't think the outcome would be better.

[Broderick]

4. A true democracy means

as a whole people vote.

Who has a better selling technique?

Who controls the message?

NOT a good idea. You are suggesting that the Tea Bag people, who might influence a majority of voters at any given time, have the power to control EVERYTHING.

NO

Representative Republic is just fine.

[treestar]

5. No, people don't have enough understanding of issues and it has

become a full time job.

But I could go for making the Senate proportional. Right now we are suffering from the disproportionate Representation small states get.

[kelly1mm]

7. How could you get 3/4 of the states to OK making the Senate proportional?

I never see that happening. Slightly less then never for some type of national referendum. The posters above have described the possible unintended consequences of direct democracy and I will add another - the public supports by wide margins a balanced budget amendment.

[treestar]

12. Agree a very uphill battle

I read there was some discussion of it as far back as the Stamp Act Congress - some reps wanted to vote not by state by proportionally. The small states would never stand for it. It could be possible some day if the population is ever spread out more evenly and the remaining 1/4 stood too much in the way of what a majority wanted.

I often see on DU things like "the majority want such and such" and that is true, but still such and such cannot be passed because of the Senate. And the filibuster thing makes it worse.

[Cleita]

6. If we did it like the Greeks did, we wouldn't need elections.

They selected their government body by lottery. Every citizen had his name on a board and then a random selection of white and black marbles indicated who would be a member and who would have to wait until the next session. Of course you had to be a male of the right tribe and a land owner to qualify as a citizen.

I always thought that the House of Representatives should be selected like this in each district just like jury duty. Once you served a term, then you would be free of that duty. Most people would never serve, but that is why the randomness of this type of selection is so very democratic.

[valerief]

8. But the most important thing in the world is for the rich to get richer

and you can't do that in a democracy.

[Cool Logic]

9. John Adams: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity

against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world.

Democracy: a government of the masses. Authority derived thru mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in Mobacracy. Attitude toward property is communist - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion. prejudice and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Republic: Authority is derived thru the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobacracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress. Is the standard form of government throughout the world.

[izquierdista]

10. But is it possible?

Think how long it would take to send a rider from every town with the sack of ballots to the state capital and then for the state to send a rider to Washington, D.C. to tabulate the results. Then, you would have to have the riders turn around and let all the town criers know what the vote was. No, it would take some magical way of everyone instantly sending their ballots to a giant abacus where the votes could be counted. Maybe someday the technology will exist.

[yawnmaster]

11. I would fear direct elections. Representative is fine with me...

Getting the right rep is where the effort should be.

And I have problems with the proposed changes to the first amendment. Who gets to define bias?