Real Democracy?

Is it possible?

If it what somewhat feasible would it be desirable?

Now I don't mean direct democracy, we all know that is a big no no, but a constitutional Representative democracy like most nations attempt at. I suppose we have it, and you can argue elitism or bloodlines or what-not, but when you look at it money is the big winner here. It struck me, shocked me really, over an innocent remark on CNN that truly showed me how bad its gotten. It was for the nominations. I can't remember the details so fill in the blanks, but it was the underlying sentiment that scared me.

(Paraphrase)

"In ____ (state) Hillary/Obama has spent far more money and is expecting to take the lead."

It basically said those that spend more money will win. Which is true in most elections. But doesn't this defeat the purpose?

Shouldn't the best person for the job win, not the richest?

Now this is just a sign of it. I am referring to the fact that we are and have been apathetic to it forever. We elect the best of two evils, then shrug and expect the BS that happens.

I am not starting another thread bitching about it. This is a hypothetical question however. With all the problems and failings our democracy has, would be a way to ensure money does not interfere with our elected representatives, or is there at least a way to limit this?

My best idea is perhaps having a cap on spending, that the government itself helps pay off those that fall under the cap, so Joe Buck running for city council, who is a working class man but has some really good ideas, beats out lawyer boy who doesn't care for city council. And do this the whole way up.

I am very disenfranchised, and I hope that there is some ideas out there to make a government actually works for the people.

Well ATS any thoughts?

originally posted by: Tenebrous
Is it possible?

If it what somewhat feasible would it be desirable?

Now I don't mean direct democracy, we all know that is a big no no, but a constitutional Representative democracy like most nations attempt at. I suppose we have it, and you can argue elitism or bloodlines or what-not, but when you look at it money is the big winner here. It struck me, shocked me really, over an innocent remark on CNN that truly showed me how bad its gotten. It was for the nominations. I can't remember the details so fill in the blanks, but it was the underlying sentiment that scared me.

(Paraphrase)

"In ____ (state) Hillary/Obama has spent far more money and is expecting to take the lead."

It basically said those that spend more money will win. Which is true in most elections. But doesn't this defeat the purpose?

Shouldn't the best person for the job win, not the richest?

Now this is just a sign of it. I am referring to the fact that we are and have been apathetic to it forever. We elect the best of two evils, then shrug and expect the BS that happens.

I am not starting another thread bitching about it. This is a hypothetical question however. With all the problems and failings our democracy has, would be a way to ensure money does not interfere with our elected representatives, or is there at least a way to limit this?

My best idea is perhaps having a cap on spending, that the government itself helps pay off those that fall under the cap, so Joe Buck running for city council, who is a working class man but has some really good ideas, beats out lawyer boy who doesn't care for city council. And do this the whole way up.

I am very disenfranchised, and I hope that there is some ideas out there to make a government actually works for the people.

Well ATS any thoughts?

Although this thread is 15 years old, I should mention that in an interview in 2006, the head of Cuba's rubber-stamp parliament, Ricardo Alarcon, insisted that "democracy should begin with Pericles's definition – that society is for the benefit of the majority – and should not be imposed from outside." However, the now-deceased Alarcon overlooked the fact that even though Athens was the birthplace of democratic governance, the Athenian democracy wasn't exactly democratic in terms of who could participate because women and slaves couldn't take part in the Athenian democracy.

As for criticism of raising money for candidates in democratic elections, the idea of candidates asking for contributions to fund their campaigns was considered anathema by George Washington and friends, and Andrew Jackson may have been the first president to have his presidential campaign funded by campaign contributions. If Nikki Haley fails to garner enough popular support ahead of the GOP primaries for the 2024 election season and Donald Trump is coerced by his advisors to quit the race for the 2024 GOP nomination in the event that he faints and collapses on stage while delivering a speech in Nebraska or Michigan, then Vivek Ramaswamy and Larry Elder could woo voters with fiery speeches whereby they pound their fists into the sky to add energy to their speeches.