Friendly reminder: The U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy, NOT a direct democracy

a reply to: onequestion

Your reminder does place something that has always confounded me in context, thank you.

For a country that claims to be a democracy i have never understood why Americans never directly elect their politicians like they do in Brian and Australia (and perhaps Canada also for all i know)

I cannot see any purpose for having this 'middle man' process other than to separate the electors from their politicians but what the purpose is for that I am absolutely buggard if I know.?????????

a reply to: Azureblue

For a country that claims to be a democracy i have never understood why Americans never directly elect their politicians like they do in Brian and Australia

The United States does not claim to be a democracy.
www.archives.gov...

Electing people to make decisions, as is done in the countries you mention, is not direct democracy. It is representational government. A direct democracy means that laws are made by popular vote. A very bad idea.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Azureblue

For a country that claims to be a democracy i have never understood why Americans never directly elect their politicians like they do in Brian and Australia

The United States does not claim to be a democracy.
www.archives.gov...

Electing people to make decisions, as is done in the countries you mention, is not direct democracy. It is representational government. A direct democracy means that laws are made by popular vote. A very bad idea.

Thank you for the correction, but why is direct democracy so bad in your view (I hope I have interpreted that correctly.) Personally I favor a popularly elected govt but one strictly controlled by referendums on all all major decisions. Just imagine a world where 'we the people' were the only Upper House or Senate their was and the govt was required to have a referendum:

to send troops to a war zone
before any international agreement can become signed and become law
before Oboma care could be established
before something like the Federal Reserve could be created

In addition, all referendum decisions would automatically have a sunset clause in them which would mean unless such mandates are renewed every so many years, they would automatically expire and become invalid. This would give we the people the opportunity to 'undo' a previous approval after having experienced the approved decision.

a reply to: Azureblue

Just imagine a world where 'we the people' were the only Upper House or Senate their was and the govt was required to have a referendum:

Just imagine a world where a majority makes all the laws. Including those about who is allowed to vote.

In reality, the people only get to choose heads of state because 2 private organisations allow them to. The DNC and RNC can decide who they want to compete for the Presidency without any regard for voters. Any coordination between the parties and external influencers - corporations or other countries - can lead to the President of the USA being a choice between two people hand picked by outside interests.

This is the biggest problem in my view (and I am sure it is not what the founding fathers intended). The DNC is probably the worst example right now, with super delegates effectively deciding the DNC nomination. I fully expect the RNC to change it's rules next time around to ensure an 'outsider' can never again win the nomination.

The Constitution of the United States:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands...

We are a Republic first and foremost, regardless of all the other fancy terminology. We are a nation founded on law, not majority rule.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Azureblue

Just imagine a world where 'we the people' were the only Upper House or Senate their was and the govt was required to have a referendum:

Just imagine a world where a majority makes all the laws. Including those about who is allowed to vote.

The beauty of the US system is that it tries to halt the inevitable march from democracy to oligarchy (as happened with Rome, for example) through the separation of power.. Unfortunately, even the US system is finding it hard to stop the march. Society seems to find a way towards minority (and elitist) rule, like water seeping through cracks.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle


You don't even have a representative democracy, the allegedly "elected" representatives don't represent the people, they represent their funding sources

/mic drop

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You are completely correct.

He is in fact not correct.

I already said we dont have a direct democracy we have a representative democracy.

This is part of the problem right here.

Yes I am correct, otherwise the allegedly elected faux representatives would be representing 99% of the people instead of funding sources and socially disruptive special interest groups. Try thinking logically for a moment, the "people" are not represented.

It's the same in canadakastan, England, France, etc and every other colony or country in the world. Politics has become a bad joke and it's on all of us. It's time to clean house, everywhere and it certainly isn't going to get cleaned through our rigged elections lol.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Azureblue
Thank you for the correction, but why is direct democracy so bad in your view (I hope I have interpreted that correctly.) Personally I favor a popularly elected govt but one strictly controlled by referendums on all all major decisions. Just imagine a world where 'we the people' were the only Upper House or Senate their was and the govt was required to have a referendum:

Besides the issues that you get majority rule over who can vote, lets use your examples:
- Sending troops to a war zone. What makes you think the average person can understand the intricacies of war? People are very bad at understanding long term strategy, if they take a loss they want to pull out and if they win they want to go further in. A loss or two would make us pull out of a war zone, and then public sentiment would shift and we would try to go back in. It's a recipe for disaster, you can't run the military off of public sentiment.

-Making international agreements law. What does the average person know of international law and copyright law, as well as how to intersect the two? The average person has an attention span of seconds, do you really think that's enough to cover the details of things like using a persons name or image in a digital product? (these questions haven't even been solved domestically yet)

-Before the ACA was established... it was extremely popular, it would have passed by much greater margins if it were up to public opinion. The difference is that it would have also then been repealed based on public opinion with nothing set up to replace it.

-Before something like the Federal Reserve could be created. What's the problem with the Federal Reserve? Are you against central banking?

In addition, all referendum decisions would automatically have a sunset clause in them which would mean unless such mandates are renewed every so many years, they would automatically expire and become invalid. This would give we the people the opportunity to 'undo' a previous approval after having experienced the approved decision.

As it is, nothing in politics is ever permanent, that's done so that renewals/repeals can be periodically leveraged by parties.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: amazing

Not a chance in he'll I trust the average person to know what their doing or to protect my rights.

Really? But you trust big corporations, lawyers and lobbyists?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
Why would you be against a direct democracy? It would be so much better than the convoluted system that we have now that is so easy to hijack with money and shady tactics? A direct democracy would also make it easier to have third and fourth parties on the ballots.

Because a population only has an average level understanding of any given issue, and the average understanding tends to be pretty low. Just look through this thread at the average understanding of our government system, there's 3 pages so far where every single person has a different understanding of what our system is supposed to be. The same is true on every single issue you come up with.

Direct democracy is prone to people voting on issues without actually understanding the details of those issues or how the systems work. That in turn leads to massive inefficiencies and ultimately failure. Do you think English teachers are as qualified to give input on digital copyright law as lawyers or that the truck driver who uses online banking is as qualified to make decisions on internet connectivity and encryption as a software engineer? Or to flip that around, that the software engineer will best understand the logistics of a particular regulation on the trucking industry like not being able to pull to the roadside to sleep?

Both 1 man and a million are unqualified to make decisions. Who is qualified is a smaller group of people who are large enough to cover each others prejudices while still being small enough to be efficiently briefed by experts on a subject.

I don't fully disagree with your main points here, but I'll ask the question of you that I just asked another... You say you can't trust the average citizen to make good choices, but with the system we have now, you're leaving the governing of our nation to large corporations, crooked Lawyers and lobbyists paid for by rich people. I don't get a fair voice in that system. the average poor and lower income or even middle class citizen does NOT get a voice in this type of governing system.

I trust the average person to make a better choice than a crooked lawyer any day.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It doesnt change the fact that we have a system of representation regardless of how you spin it does not matter.

a reply to: Klassified

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Republic...

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

oooooooo kkk..

we have democratically elected representatives and officials

call it a republic or a democracy really i mean come on.

a reply to: amazing

But I didn't say what we have now is ideal, it's less than ideal but I do think it's better than either a dictatorship or a direct democracy. To answer your question I don't trust the single cooked lawyer or corporation either, it's only through having a group of people with competing interests that government can fairly govern. Corporate influence could be managed through campaign finance reform or even by paying congress more so that the corporations money has less appeal.

You mention that you don't get a voice in the system, but my question is... should you? How many subjects that you vote on are you an expert on? Can you weight the proposals of various candidates with the level of expertise that the people who were debating the policy recommendation were able to put into it? If you can't do that with a single subject, how can you evaluate an entire platform that goes over 100's of disciplines and evaluate a single candidate with all of the nuance of each having policies slightly better than the other in competing areas?

In the end the individual is unqualified to vote on broad areas of policy. This is why we shouldn't encourage the individual to vote on policy and it's why we instead vote for representatives who in theory can learn all of the nuance and cast an informed vote (but all too often, votes for representatives devolve into votes on groups of policies). The problem is, the job of representatives is so broad and the demand for money is so great that what should be a job that's almost full time reading policy recommendations is instead 80% fund raising, 10% voting, 10% reading.

a reply to: onequestion
Republic: A republic is a sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.

Solon, often called the father of the republic said...
"Society is well governed when its people obey the magistrates, and the magistrates obey the law."

Democracy: Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. Democracy is further defined as a: "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

As I said. We are first and foremost a Republic per the above definition. We utilize democratic principles in that we elect representatives. Our Republic protects the rights of the individual from the majority, and the majority from the individual.

A pure democracy is majority rule either through the people solely, or through the people and their representatives. It is mob rule where 51% of us can take away your individual rights. There is a difference.

They used to teach this in school. What the hell happened?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: amazing

But I didn't say what we have now is ideal, it's less than ideal but I do think it's better than either a dictatorship or a direct democracy. To answer your question I don't trust the single cooked lawyer or corporation either, it's only through having a group of people with competing interests that government can fairly govern. Corporate influence could be managed through campaign finance reform or even by paying congress more so that the corporations money has less appeal.

You mention that you don't get a voice in the system, but my question is... should you? How many subjects that you vote on are you an expert on? Can you weight the proposals of various candidates with the level of expertise that the people who were debating the policy recommendation were able to put into it? If you can't do that with a single subject, how can you evaluate an entire platform that goes over 100's of disciplines and evaluate a single candidate with all of the nuance of each having policies slightly better than the other in competing areas?

In the end the individual is unqualified to vote on broad areas of policy. This is why we shouldn't encourage the individual to vote on policy and it's why we instead vote for representatives who in theory can learn all of the nuance and cast an informed vote (but all too often, votes for representatives devolve into votes on groups of policies). The problem is, the job of representatives is so broad and the demand for money is so great that what should be a job that's almost full time reading policy recommendations is instead 80% fund raising, 10% voting, 10% reading.

I understand what you're saying but I disagree with the premise. It comes down to freedom. I should have the right to vote for who I want and the policies that I want. That's called individual freedom. I don't have that now and I should. Who are you to tell me that I shouldn't have that freedom? We have North Korea, China and Russia as examples of countries where the people were too stupid to know what to vote for. If I wanted that, I'd move there.

a reply to: Klassified

Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly,"

So your telling me this isnt whats happening?

Where did i say its a pure democracy please quote...

We are a democracy we vote to elect officials who then represent us on a federal level and we vote on laws.

Thats whats happening weather your willing to admit it or not.

in my town, we have direct democracy. I vote on the budget, not a selectman

so there !!!

a reply to: syrinx high priest

I'm talking about on a federal level. Many states have direct democracies and they also happen to 've some of the state's with the most problems.