Representative Democracy vs. Direct Democracy.

Ive thought a lot about our current form of government in America, how its benefitted so few yet hurt so many more for profit(Not just foreign countries we invade, us). Its easy to see how our government can be corrupted by economic interests of the financial sector and abroad. We have politicians that become controlled and in turn do not govern in the best interest of our nation as a whole. They benefit themselves and a select few while indulging in the power they have, they use it to spark fear and utilize people as scape goats. They have extended a vast system to monitor us all to stop "Terrorism", they seek to limit our freedoms, they seek to control. Of course not all politicians are guilty and our form of government is better than autocratic and totalitarian states(Although it feels like one). Republican forms of government can be good and have been a vast improvement over other forms of administration, it only fails when our elected officials are pawns instead of representatives.

In a direct democracy all of our elected officials would be have to gain popular vote instead of delegates and would be much more responsive to the people's demand. Instead of unlimited money in politics it would be banned because we would realize it subverts our representative's duties to the people through their own corruption for taking such bribes. Our government would have to address petitions with enough signatures on it instead of blatantly ignoring them, the more signers the more attention it should recieve of course. We could install process for citizens to overturn legislation that is unsatisfactory through a vote, this could work on both state and national levels. I've had a idea, we could institute a public review council that acts as a legislative body taken directly from the citizens through either a lottery or a random distribution. It would review the final version of laws and vote on them, if a majority is achieved then the law must either be scrapped or revised till it passes. If a super majority(2/3) is achieved then the law should be outright scrapped in its current form. Of course for this to be possible the proposed laws couldnt be purposefully long and use more common language.

What do you guys think? Would you prefer a direct democracy or a effective republic form of government?

Wouldn't a direct democracy take too long to get shit done?

lol lord pheonix XD

Gauz wrote:Wouldn't a direct democracy take too long to get shit done?

The idea is that the elected officials still play a big role in our government instead of every damn person in the country deciding it at one time(If it is like that then its a vote which doesnt take long). The system can be made to where its effective, it doesnt have to be a arduous process to incorporate the people into our government.

We have computers now, which can automatically and quickly read and categorize ballots. Direct democracy is possible, but people are very very stupid so I'd rather not have everything be in the popular vote... But elected people can be just as stupid... -.-

People know the cast of Jersey Shore better than their local leaders (Mayor and what not)


I don't trust people.

Well fuck government then rofl, people suck apparently ^.^

Direct versus representative won't solve anything. A lot of these 'bad' things (patriot act, iraq war, afghan war, national healthcare, horrible horrible debt) are caused by peoples votes. If a representative tries to act in the best interest of the nation, it won't always look like that from the peoples POV. IE, a representative that wants to raise taxes along with benefits, or stops benefits to keep taxes low. Both look bad because people want low taxes and high benefits and then want to complain about how the government is doing nothing about the debt.

We need some kind of oligarchy, or elite democracy, where anyone has the possibility to become part of the 'elite' voting class.

maybe just a 3 question test along with each vote about the what that bill/candidate is about. If you get 2/3 right then your vote is counted.

In this country there is too much push for people to vote for the sake of voting and nearly nothing pushing people to actually educate themselves before voting.

If you don't know what it is you're voting on, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. period.

Or let your Gawd (Lord Pheonix) assume direct control.

Neither system works, Athens had an Full Democracy, and it was just as corrupt since the common people (and its still true) will always elect the person they like the most, not the person who is best for office. So the Rich Man with a fake smile and spare cash set aside for political donations will always win. Representative Democracy works well enough when there isn't people trying to intentionally muck the system up, but in the modern Era of Corporations there are many who are paid just for the purpose of mucking the system up so business can run without interference.

You want a perfect government?, Absolute Monarch (Or dictator) that is competent, skilled and smart enough to govern his country as a servant of the people, and not as a Ruler.

That too is impossible since even if you can find someone like that to rule, There are plenty of people who would want to see them gone and themselves on the throne. So thus you need to add immortality to the list of Traits for your Almighty Lord Pheonix Emperor, and we don't have that capability yet.

Our current system has major problems, but direct democracy would be disastrous with a country as large and powerful as the US. Anarchy would also, quite obviously, lead to ruin.

There are no cases of Anarchy not working.

Somalia

KristallNacht wrote:There are no cases of Anarchy not working.

You're seriously going to go with that? Our debate before was about social anarchy, but you think that TOTAL anarchy would be just as efficient? Really? I don't even know what to say to that.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Somalia

Somalia was never anarchist. It was a 'democratic republic' followed by civil war.

CivBase wrote:Our current system has major problems, but direct democracy would be disastrous with a country as large and powerful as the US. Anarchy would also, quite obviously, lead to ruin.

Explain how direct democracy would be a disaster, sure on a large scale some of its own flaws are exibited such as some people's lack of information while voting but that happens in a regular republic anyways. Many of the features of a direct democracy would be a vast improvement and remedy a few of our major problems, which will lead the way in dealing with the rest.

I don't see either of them being better or worse.

Death, what you suggested isn't any different from Representative Democracy. How exactly does changing things to a popular vote fix all the loop holes in the system? The election process isn't the problem. Everything else is the problem. If anything, Direct Democracy would be worse because it would ensure that the charismatic husks like Obama always win. There are several major problems with the United States government system.

A) In order for anything to pass, a lot of people have to agree on it. This may sound great, but in reality, it just leads to petty political bullshit. If Senator A opposes Senator B's motion, Senator B won't support Senator A's motion later down the line, regardless of whether or not Senator B agrees with Senator A's motion. This type of fear tactic results in basically no oversight within the government. You vote along the party line, or you risk alienating yourself from the party. This further motivates party members to get other party members elected. It's two big clubs, and whoever has majority gets to make the rules. Encouraging dumb people to just vote the line is part of the territory. This doesn't change at all in your proposed system. If nothing else, it puts even more emphasis on this flaw.

B) A major flaw of democracy is that the average person is an idiot. Uneducated voters are a HUGE problem, because they undermine the entire point. This problem is, again, even worse in your proposed system.

C) In order to be a politician, you have to be good at two things. The first is speaking and the second is under the table dealing. These are the only two things you need. Anyone who does not excel at both of these things will ultimately fail to be a politician. For this reason, all politicians are crooks and liars. Educated people realize this, and give up on voting because all choices suck. This is, again, made worse by your proposed system, since it would just put even more emphasis on speaking and, by proxy, under the table deals.

Another thing that Starship Troopers points out is that voting is enacting a near limitless authority, but currently, none of the voters then have to deal with the responsibility that comes with authority.

It doesn't matter if the President does every last thing to the T that Voter A votes for, if it fails its the President's fault, and not that Voter A was just voting for really stupid things.

KristallNacht wrote:

Lord Pheonix wrote:Somalia

Somalia was never anarchist. It was a 'democratic republic' followed by civil war.

But it is in a state of anarchy currently with no governmental leadership in charge now.

In control and in charge are different things.

There is a government TRYING to be in control.

but also, that's Africa. The only civilization to not invent the wheel without outside help.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:
We need some kind of oligarchy, or elite democracy, where anyone has the possibility to become part of the 'elite' voting class.

maybe just a 3 question test along with each vote about the what that bill/candidate is about. If you get 2/3 right then your vote is counted.

CITIZENSHIP THROUGH SERVICE

this

All Hail the Madgod Emperor!

Sanity is for those who can't be lead both Parties as a candidate through excessive gifts of cheese.