And lawmakers do? They are just as intelligent as the general public in most cases. Politics has lost most peoples interest who would be perfect candidates for it. We're starting to get to the point where the dumb and old are ruling America. We need younger, smarter people who really understand what the people want/need. I can't say that I can understand it, but atleast any of us have a better idea than they do. (In most cases )
Even though it is highly unlikely...I'm thinking about working my way up to becoming one of Mi senators. Work my way up there... Although I prefer the weather more, I'm totally willing to do it. Thats what I'm doing atleast...
A Direct Democracy might be practical...Or atleast, make it so the public can vote on more issues. Right now, We vote maybe once a year...I think that atleast if we had more, it would give the country more of a direction.
Nami kotogotoku, waga tate to nare. Ikazuchi kotogotoku, waga yaiba to nare. Sōgyo no Kotowari!
波悉く我が盾となれ雷悉く我が刃となれ,双魚の理 !
Every wave be my shield, every lightning become my blade!
Direct as in direct, not indirect. Like a real democracy, not a republic in which we elect people to vote for us. Back when our government was set up it would be difficult to send a horse or something to each house and collect votes, but now it would be perfectly possible.
Ok, the thing is, you also said representative, which confused me. And you really want the American people, the same ones who watch American Idol and Desperate Housewives, more involved in our political system? My favorite quote of all time is "A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky animals and you know it" from Men In Black. It's true. Think of how we are manipulated by the media. I do NOT want the same people who elected George W. Bush voting on more issues. I want a real meritocracy. Some sort of test should be required before you are allowed to run for congress or the presidency. Also, there are nearly 300 million people in this country, it takes awhile to get all those votes and count them up. Election nights are a major event. It's possible, but how practical is it?
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
I dunno, it'd have to be easy as well as secure though. Just saying that the way voting is now, with a bunch of 20th century people running a 21st century world, doesn't always work out.
1. Real democracy. Media is in control.
2. Meritocracy. Those who determine the criteria are in control.
3. Current system. Corporations and geriatrics are in control.
4. Dictatorship/monarchy. Random clique is in control.
Power tends to concentrate, sad fact. Especially given what communication is today.
..."I'm sorry, but I really can't see anything redeeming in your philosophy other than that dinosaurs are cute."
~Beatles
The Kraken, which is found primarily in Scandinavian myth, was a huge sea creature. It was said to lie at the bottom of the sea for a long time and then it would rest at the surface....Like the Midgard serpent in the Norse myths, the Kraken was supposed to rise to the surface at the end of the world.
The last thing we want is a pure democracy. Tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the people want to enslave the other 49%, that's fine. Go right ahead. If they want to exterminate a certain 25% of the population, no law's stopping them. The 25% will be on their own...
Now, a constitutional democracy (Certain rights/laws/etc set out in a constitution, ammendment process, laws must agree with the constitution) might work, but it could be a complicated hassel, getting the votes of 150 - 200 million odd voting age people every time something comes up.
Because, you see, congress works for several months every year. In additon, they debate. Would we have to have massive chatrooms for debate? Right debate articals back and forth? That would take weeks for each issue. We'd have to deal with 5, 10, or more issues at a time, due the the time it would take for each one...
Plus, of course, the issue of getting the votes from everybody, preventing vote fraud, etc etc etc...
It seems way to complicated to work over such a large scale. A city, yeah. A state, maybe. A nation, no. Not one of our size, anyway. Switzerland is far smaller, thus, it's possible...
Empires: WOA: Attila the Hun(#13)
BFR: ? Founder and Leader of Hungry Huns (HH)
Wow.. and here I thought I'd have to be arguing with all of you about this for many many posts. That is perhaps the most succint summary of what I was trying to say that I have ever read. (Both Beatles and Ruddertail).
All in all, I'd rather stick with what we have and just try to elect competent leaders. Or get myself elected, with all of you guys as my councilors/cabinet/cronies/whatever. I'm fairly sure our group could do a better job of running the country than most of our current leaders.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
Yes, spot-on Rudder, size is a problem. Greece had city-states, where this could work -- although even there not without flaws.
Volkov: I have somewhat of a flair for succinct summaries of other people's thoughts. Economy of speech is often a great virtue, as Orwell said -- if not in that many words. Have you ever read the gem of an essay Politics and the English Language? http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
I have no real beef with parliamentary democracies, to be honest. Well, the politicians suck, but that really can't be helped. I do think, however, that multi-party proportional representation systems are far better than First-Past-The-Post. The problem with FPTP is that it becomes all about regional concentration, and thus you can actually have "tyranny of the minority". With a proportional system, all interests are represented. Of course, for such things to work reasonably well, one needs to have a bit of a minimum cap of total votes before a party can win proportional seats...
But, really, the main problem with direct democracy is simply the issue of participation. I don't believe in mandatory voting like Australia (seems counterproductive to the very concept of democracy), and otherwise turnout would be awful. Really, it wouldn't be any kind of tyranny of the majority, as it is unlikely that turnout would even be close to high enough for that!
If you go down to the woods today, you better not go alone
It's a lovely day in the woods today, but safer to stay at home
BECAUSE EVIL FREEN IS KILLING ALL THE TEDDY BEARS AT THEIR PICNIC
I dunno, I don't mind parliments(sp?), but a system where 30% of the people are in control, because that's the majority, just doesn't appeal to me. And the whole Prime Minister not being elected by the people just seems silly to me. I'd rather have a system like the US has, but with more parties. That way Congress truly has to be multipartisan to pass anything. And you wouldn't have this two party, liberal/conservative dichotomy that is dividing our country ever more deeply.
And I haven't read it Beatles, but I am going too.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
It annoys me that people want different people as president, or different people running for Senate for the House, but only old people with a history of stuff that looks good on a resume are elected. Why do we put age limits on the people that can be in office? Why are there so many restrictions? As you guys said, we don't want it to be a simple popularity contest, but there's a better balance somewhere (still, Arnold isn't that bad). If only the government was like FAF... Beatles as pres/prime minister, Devari as vice, Rudder, Freen, Urran, Volkov, I, etc. maybe members of parliament...
Hehee. If I were PM, then Devari wouldn't be a vice-president, but either Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury) or Foreign Secretary. Those are, I believe, the two most powerful non-head positions in the UK's parliamentary system, which is the basis of mos such systems.
Back on topic: the restrictions are meant to work in a 90-10 way. They weed out 90% of the people who are unfit because they are too young -- and they are unfit -- and also 10% of the people who would be fit to lead. That's as far as I understand it.
The vice-president actually has little real power. If it where the US and Beatles was president, then Devari would probably be the National security adviser or something like that.
On topic: I think that's pretty much the only reason for the resrictions. Well and the natural born citizenb of the US thing for the presidency is because someone not born in the US might not have the sense of basic American values as one born in the US might have.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
Yeah...I'm just as patriotic as the next guy, but I think that even an citizenship limit for President would be good. Say 40 years? Children who come over as immigrants would have american values along with whatever there parents taught them. No so bad I guess, but I wouldn't vote for it without some major restriction. Goodness knows who would run...
Nami kotogotoku, waga tate to nare. Ikazuchi kotogotoku, waga yaiba to nare. Sōgyo no Kotowari!
波悉く我が盾となれ雷悉く我が刃となれ,双魚の理 !
Every wave be my shield, every lightning become my blade!
I really, really, really wish we had term limits for Senators and Representatives. I also wish we had some means of assuring that the cash advantage plays less of a role than it currently does. Nowadays the candidate with the biggest warchest wins an ungodly amount of races.
I know the voices in my head arn't real but they usually have some pretty good ideas.
)
Economy of speech is often a great virtue, as Orwell said -- if not in that many words. Have you ever read the gem of an essay Politics and the English Language?
