Direct Democrcy

reply to post by daskakik


Again, I don't agree with you. You have failed to make even a sort of convincing case for your proposition. The onus is on you to convince us that what your propose has merit. If this is all you have, you have failed to make a case I can support. So get to it and give us what you have.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Again, I don't agree with you. You have failed to make even a sort of convincing case for your proposition.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm pointing out why I disagree with your proposition and since we are just going back and forth repeating that we disagree, we could just drop it.

reply to post by daskakik


See, the difference is that I'm not making a proposition. I'm saying what we have is not perfect, but I don't see another system that would be superior. I think we can tweak what we already have and improve it a bit. You are proposing a radical change and giving us very little information about how what you propose would work.

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


Personally, I think this is an awesome idea.

I think there was a movie that was a fairly good prediction of how this will turn out.



It’s already bad enough that anyone and everyone gets to vote regardless of their mental capacity. I was heretofore unaware that the mentally handicapped got to vote. Then I saw this video I researched the law and a man with an IQ of say between 50 and 70 gets to vote.

His criteria were that his candidate be a good speaker and black not white. I wonder – is he media washed or thinking critically? Feel free to form your own opinions.



Let’s just go for broke and have direct democracy. I'm sure the results will be awesome.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

Sorry, but I was initially only replying to your post about California's budget being the fault of its ballot initiative process.

I haven't proposed any change. I'm stating that your interpretation of DD is simplistic. When implemented into, not replacing, something like the current system in the US then it won't become mob rule.

There will still be the actual system of checks and balances in place and the constitution will still be the supreme law of the land.

Anything passed by DD could still be shot down by the SCOTUS if it violates the constitution. Going into further detail is a waste of time because they are secondary to the fact that it will pretty much be the same as the actual system.

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


That's a good point. I wasn't trying to be mean, just funny. It was really meant lightheartedly. But you're right, the minute you stoop to that level of conversation with someone you have done more to hurt your objective than help it. It is frustrating though when you present logic to someone, in many different ways, and they continuously repeat the same things to you over and over like they are not listening. I guess, sometimes, I feel like "if they won't listen, then screw them". Especially on such important issues. Thanks for the correction though, I needed that.