Who is ready for a democracy?

One of the catchphrases of the politicos is "democracy" ie. "we are sending our troops to help democracy. this democracy is the greatest nation in the world."

the problem is this country is ruled by a republic system, not a democratic one. i find that this relic of a system is the stranglehold that curtails the potential cultural, economic, and social growth of America.

the reason for the republic government is when it was instituted the population of America was small and hardworking with little time to legislate full time, like the situation is today, with congressmen and senators working the voters and working hard to further their own agendas and fill their own coffers. also the lack of communication and the lengthy amount of time that took place to send a letter from say new york to washington dc was a major deterrent to making it a full democracy. so representatives were appointed to follow the will of the people, this was a good model and has been very effective for about 150 years.

but now corruption and ideological splits and issues have made the government a barely functioning institution. also the federal government's elected officials are only 0.00000000916% of the population, roughly. and a large portion are old white males. this seems like a misrepresentation of the whole united states population.

I believe that it is time to change the way we vote on the actions and the issues that are being chosen by our lawmakers by voting on the issues as they come up and doing so instantaneously thanks to technology.

Isn't it time to make the choices ourselves and voice our opinions instead of entrusting them to "representatives"?

Pure Democracy, the old and pure form is called direct democracy.. which can't work since it would have to come down to all governmental functions of congress to be done via every citizen voting in or down basic functions of laws and government. that why we had Representative system. Republic is just a generic term for a government without out a noble system or king.. Pm/Prez/whatever.

If you want a system where every day you personally have to go into the town center and vote in laws then go to a caton in Switzerland.. even the founders of the political system called democracy.. was a semi representative system.

Somebody didn't stay awake during political science class.



Direct Democracies is one of the most abhorrent systems of Government. Instead of the tyranny of one man such as a dictatorship, it is the tyranny of the masses. Also you seem a bit naive as to how the system actually works. With a direct democracy you'd still have "Representatives" but, instead of there being a system involved the Representatives would be placed in positions of power by popular vote. You really should look up how the Electoral College works or better yet look at the U.S system.. If you really want to get rid of the Representatives and still use a Democratic system. Look into various forms of Anarchism.

Pure democracy is just another way of tyranny. The one with biggest will always win, not caring about smaller ones. All method is fair as long as you can gain masses.

It's like the whole power is controlled by anarchy.

This is more of a fault of the political party system rather than the government itself...

never took a class, and you don't have to take one to learn.

also constitusion based federal republic; strong democratic traditions

quite a few of you also seems to be under the assumption that 1. i would want the entire federal, state, and municipal governments to be dissolved, i do not. 2. change is something to be feared. Most things in moderation, even moderation.

also i would prefer in my system that the representatives be our advocates/mediators instead of our decisions makers. for example, they would cast a vote but like the electoral college would do it along the lines of their constituents, from a real time vote. i realize that this would require permanent voting facilities, but i would prefer that to only being able to marginally influence the opinions and decision making process of our representatives once every two years.

Please correct me if I am wrong...
Republicans are parties for their countries interests...
Democracy is a party for their peoples interests.. am I right?

A democracy is typically defined as a form of government in which all of the people have equal say in decisions that affect their lives. Obviously in practice, that doesn't work to well. Never has, never will.

Republicans, in this case, refers to The Republican Party of the United States, which is generally viewed as people who support the Conservatism philosophy. Again, as to exactly what that means is up to the individual.

Democrats refers to The Democratic party of the United States, which represents people who support Progressivism. And yet again, who actually knows what that means. Heh.

And yes, inb4 Flaser berates me for Wiki spewing, yes, that was Wiki spew. Point being, the difference is really in the eye of the beholder. It is part of the whole reason as to why Representative Democracy is such a shallow concept. People become too narrowminded and can hardly have a conscious thought of their own. The differences between the parties actually comes down to nothing more than the difference of values between individuals with a convenient label attached to it for ease of identification. It is very sad.

Don't forget this piece of history.... before the 1950's Republicans were the party of the people, freedom and working man. Democrats use to be the party of the rich wealth slave states in the south who was under the control with the christian right and big business. It's amazing that in the era of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower that the party of the people was overturn by the crazies and rich and the party of slavery and a holes were turn by great people like FDR and Truman...

The system of anarchy is a great system in theory.. but humans are too greedy and stupid to not kill and steal if their no one forcing them not to... about 90% of the time.

Ahhhhhhhhh, just to clarify, direct democracy cannot exist in a society with millions of people, for obvious reasons that I'm sure you can think up for yourselves.

So,

Are you suggesting rule of the mob democracy? That is essentially anarchy or lack of government. In other words, I believe you are saying we need to return to the Hobbesian State of Nature. The state of nature can be seen as a "war of every man against every man" in which life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes [1651] 1994, chap. 13).

And well, I can go on about this for a while... but I don't want to waste my time. Do you guys care to listen?

Now that we've thoroughly defined democracy (method of government), can we move on to other issues?
I'd like to argue that a form democratic government can exist, in a society such as ours. It would just be expensive and time consuming.

Model proposal:
Add a branch of government instituting public vote (much like the state referendum system).

In the beginning, group of citizens propose an idea to their representative.
The idea is formulated into a bill, and put before Congress. (The Senate, as The House's population based model is now obsolete)
After passing Congress, the bill is put to popular vote. Popular vote is facilitated through an internet system relating to each voter's social security number.
If the bill fails popular vote, it is sent back to congress and voted upon again, to see if it warrants amendment. After changes are made, the bill goes back to popular vote.
(Limit, 2-5 cycles. I'm hovering at three.)
After it's passing, the bill moves to the executive branch. The executive is re-made into a three person council, voted in and out on a staggered basis. The executive branch is the custodian of state secrets and foreign policy, and therefore is still necessary to government.
After the executive, the bill goes to the supreme court, and is passed into law. (Or declared unconstitutional....Doesn't happen as much as it should..)
-----
Problems with democratic government stem from an elitist point of view, believing that those elected to power have a better sense of "what's best" than the common man.
I could see this coming to fruition in current society, with the high degree of media manipulation in this country, and the sub-par education system, but am prepared to disregard it in this case.

Something I want to add to this system for Congressmen. A variation of the parliamentary "No confidence vote". If the people of a state feel one or more Representatives in the Senate or the House is not acting in a way the people desire. The governor can hold a vote to "call back" the Representative and replace them with someone else to finish out the current term.

I love my countrymen but, they have the political memory of a goldfish. 2+ years is too long to wait to vote some asshole out of his/her position.

I love the no confidence vote, but I think it would further exclude third party candidates.

Especially with my little ideal. Perfect world=constitutionalist fed, socialist state

The theoretical socialist party would vote the constitutionalists out the first chance they get.

"Every district in the state is clearly socialist, why would federal be any different?"

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, maybe you misunderstood me.

Elected official goes into office. He does his job, represents the will of the people of his state. Everything is fine.

Elected official goes into office. Does not do his job and represent the will of the people of his state. The people in his state become angry, call the governor to have a vote. If the majority of people in the state vote to recall the official then the official is forced to go home and be replaced. It's less partisan than allowing congress to police themselves which is essentially allowing the criminals to police the other criminals.

Democracy died thousands of years ago, direct democracy is impractical for the existence of the nation state, essentially decisions are made by complete numbskulls (which the majority will often prove to be) - the justification for this is "Oh that's fine because the majority decided it" - well perhaps the majority has been watching too much fucking TV and is a brainwashed herd of suckers ... alright .. enough ranting. Yeah democracy is one of those words with no real meaning a bit like Justice and Human Rights - the kind of things people like to chant in unison.