Direct Democracy

Post Reply New Topic

Democracy is a proven failure around the world. It's why I get so angry with the notion of "spreading democracy" when the US president spouts off such garbage.

The USA is a REPUBLIC. We have a democratic element, but we are not a DEMOCRACY.

The reason direct democracy would never work is the same reason I feel voting rights should be curtailed for most people....the average person is a moron. Honestly, talk to people about politics and you see it happen....normally intelligent and sharp minded people become blathering idiots spouting the party line. We got rid of exam requirements, gave voting rights to pretty much everyone, and you see people voting their immediate self-interest or perhaps even worse...voting PARTY LINE...no thought about the actual candidate...they vote what someone else tells them to.

About the only benefit from going direct democracy is that to pass a matter, a special interest group would have to convince many people to vote for it rather than a handful of representatives.

Certainly the US Congress is a mess, but most of that is federal power going well beyond what its scope and authority is in the Constitution. Most matters (90%+) should be done on the local and state level. Being in the Congress was supposed to be a part-time job at best, not the full-time operation it has become.

Still, there is another reason for not going directly to the people and having "politicians" make choices for us. Do you have any comprehension how complex some issues are? Do you really think the average person will bother to understand all the issues before deciding to vote for or against something? Do you not realize that many issues of law involve different interests coming together and working out something everyone can accept? None of that would likely happen with every person in America having a say at every step. Nothing would ever get passed, and if you make things too simple and broad, there can be ugly unintended consequences.

It's akin to doing your own will or paying a lawyer a reasonable fee to draft one for you. Certainly you can decide what you want to do with your stuff when you are gone, but a lawyer can spot problems you didn't think of and help you address them in your will. He can ensure the document is executed correctly so it won't be vulnerable to legal challenges when you are gone, and a good lawyer can help you plan your estate (give away stuff during life so it isn't part of your estate when you die...tax benefits, keep stuff out of the probate process, etc.). Do you really want the common person crafting laws (given the common person won't invest the time to comprehend all the issues involved, or would you rather have someone whose job is to understand what's going on and hammer out the details? An otherwise good and honest politician can do that better than you or I can.

As far as the electoral college, it is a bit antiquated, but it has a useful purpose.

The electoral college gives small states (with low populations) a stronger voice in the selection of the president. Without it, the election would focus on the major population centers. Win, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, Atlanta and Miami and you might have enough to win the office. Population centers tend to be liberal. Rural areas tend to be conservative. The electoral college forces you to win the whole state. That means Atlanta is balanced by all the rest of Georgia. You still get the "7 state strategy" (win 7 states with enough electoral votes and the rest become irrelevant), but the candidate must appeal to a broader base of people to win. Under the electoral college, a low-population state (like Wyoming) gets a decent say in who might be the next president. Likewise, as much as we complain about how many votes California gets, it's 50-something votes is not representative of their massive population. It's about balance.

Just as the House of Representatives has seats apportioned to each state based on population and the Senate gives each state 2 seats regardless of population, when the means to have effective vote counting came to pass, there was no real cause to abandon the Electoral College and push to change the Constitution accordingly.

With direct democracy, we'll have the tea bagger types demanding that the government get its hands off their medicare - and unfortunately they would be successful.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Medicare and other "entitlements" will collapse of their own weight.

We are running out of steam and money.

ruveyn

Sadly true. Although in Kraichgauer's example, the "tea bagger types" would only get their way if they posed a simple majority at the time the vote was taken.

That's another reason why it won't work. A REPUBLIC is structured so change can't happen quickly. This prevents whims of the season causing radical change to society and government. For any fundamental change to happen, the will of the people must be overwhelmingly the majority and endure long enough to see the process through. Otherwise, we'd be like any other banana republic that changes leaders and governments every other decade or so.

I agree that America is far too large for direct democracy. One average American state is roughly the size of one average European country. Could Switzerland have direct democracy if it was 50 times larger? I don't think so.

One of the advantages of republics over democracies is that change is slowed and somewhat retarded. Changes for "light and transient reasons" (to quote the Declaration of Independence) are made to be nearly impossible and basic rights trump laws de jour. In a democracy the mob rules and rights are constantly in peril.

ruveyn

It works through cantons - i.e. the local level. The whole of Switzerland doesn't just vote as one big bloc: it votes seperately, I believe.

I assume that Switzerland is a republic at the nationwide level. Do all the Swiss vote the details of Switzerland's foreign policy or its bank regulations?

ruveyn

Well, they are supposed to be the blond Jews of the Alps.
I'm kidding, ruveyn! I'm kidding!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

My leanings toward direct democracy are largely because I am afraid that the 2012 election will be between Obama and Bachmann, and I am worried that we will go to authoritarianism and Big Brotherism if either of them wins.

I don't think you have that to worry about. Obama hasn't tried to grab up absolute power, save in the minds of tea baggers, and with Bachmann - well, we managed to survive eight years of the cretin George W, so we'll live through her.
Even if she makes us wish we were all dead.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Sure, make it super direct. As in all the way to an individual level, people should rule themselves and no one else.

If I were ever going to have a bumper sticker .....!

That is not democracy, that is anarchy. It has been tried. In places like Somalia and (in effect) in Haiti.

ruveyn

Somalia is doing better now than when they were a communist country.