|
|
|
|
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 4:25:57 AM | This is more of a philosophical question, than a scientific question. But this is the science/philosophy forum, so I think it belongs here.
Democracy is useful. It allows up to have input on the decisions that governments make. But why does it have to be REPRESENTATIONAL?
100 years ago, hardly anyone had the time to get involved with the democratic process. They certainly didn't have the time to read what bills might need to be passed, and they often lacked the education to make competent decisions that affected them. So it made sense to appoint representatives to make our decisions for us.
But things have moved on, a lot. Most of us have the benefits of a job that gives us a reasonable amount of free time. Most of us have an education that gives us the ability to make decisions. Most of us have access to knowledge that allows us to know much of the issues involved. So we now have the time and the ability to contribute to those decisions.
Thanks to things like the telephone voting, postal votes, email, the internet, and interactive cable TV, most of us have the capacity to vote on issues. Programmes like American Pop Idol, and Strictly Dancing, regularly rely on viewers phoning or texting in their votes. So we have the ability to vote, and we already vote on many such TV programmes. So why aren't we doing the same with democracy?
We aren't happy with much of what our politicians decide for us. We feel many are corrupt, and just as many are not making competent decisions. So why should we leave it just up to them?
We don't even demand they have special skills, because ministers just change jobs at the will of the Prime Minister or President. The Health minister becomes the Education minister, or the Home minister, when the head of the Cabinet says so. If they don't need to be a doctor to be Health minister, and they don't need to be an ex-head teacher to be an Education minister, why should we be expected to not be able to vote just because we aren't professional politicians?
Now, I would agree that handing every decision over to the people in its entirety might be worse. Certainly some decisions need an immediate answer, that could not effectively be put to fully democratic polls. We probably could do with some help from the politicians. But surely we could contribute, and most bills are put up for voting in Parliament and Congress months in advance. Why cannot it be organised that with those months of advance notice, that we could also put our two-cents in? Why can't we be given the option to contribute to at least 30% of the vote?
I think we've seen that Representational Democracy has a lot of flaws, and with our advances in technology, we no longer need to rely on it solely to vote on issues. We could have politicians AND the people voting on bills, and that might bring a lot of bills back in line with what the people really need.
What do you think? Do you think we need access to allow people to vote on political decisions and bills passed in Parliament and Congress? | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 4:45:03 AM | Susan Boyle was defeated by a street dance troupe in a direct democratic vote.
Do you really trust these people to vote wisely on important national issues ?
Unfortunately, it has to be said that most of the public is lazy and stupid. Until the general populace demonstrates they can be trusted to vote wisely, I'd be against it. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 5:36:20 AM |
it has to be said that most of the public is lazy and stupid
Then they should only be tasked with governing themselves; they are obviously not competent to vote for representatives who are lazier, as dumb and far more crooked than they will ever be.
Until the general populace demonstrates they can be trusted to vote wisely, I'd be against it.
Considering the choice is between Tweedledum and Tweedledee (and they both work for Al Capone's international numbers racket), what would you consider the wiser vote? 
Being one of "the great unwashed", I am fully capable of ruining my own life without any help from a gang of corrupt servants of the ruling elite. I therefore decline their generous offer to include my life among the ones they rob and pillage.
If you vote, you are part of the problem. Stop voting altogether and you will force the necessary change. If you aren't happy with your "representative". Tell him he doesn't represent you and you will govern yourself. Why don't you? Are you afraid to run your own life? | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 6:55:59 AM |
Susan Boyle was defeated by a street dance troupe in a direct democratic vote.
Your point is what?...You would have voted differently?...Remember, someone's disagreeing with you doesn't make them wrong (only stupid, right?) If the majority voted for a dance troupe where you wouldn't, it only means that your view is a minority one. Should your vote count for more than theirs because you are arrogant enough to think your view is the more intelligent one? Not to worry, with the exception of Switzerland, direct democracy doesn't exist and representational democracy is neither representational or democratic. You can feel safe & secure knowing that your life and destiny is in the capable hands of an intelligent ruling elite, whose opinion of your opinion is reflected in the power of your vote to choose which dumbass is gonna put the screws to you. After all, you are just another one of the great unwashed, the opinion of which means diddleysquat to the people in charge of your life. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 8:09:47 AM | The problem with a purely democratic government becomes, very rapidly, the plight of the minority.
Until and unless someone can come up with a form of pure democracy which does not, nearly automatically, grind the minority under the boot-heel of a majority vote, it's a crappy idea that should be avoided at all costs. | |
|
| |
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 8:59:16 AM |
The problem with a purely democratic government becomes, very rapidly, the plight of the minority.
Until and unless someone can come up with a form of pure democracy which does not, nearly automatically, grind the minority under the boot-heel of a majority vote, it's a crappy idea that should be avoided at all costs.
Agreed. The majority often makes really bad decisions. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 9:02:39 AM |
Until and unless someone can come up with a form of pure democracy which does not, nearly automatically, grind the minority under the boot-heel of a majority vote, it's a crappy idea that should be avoided at all costs.
What is the difference between grinding a minority under the boot-heel of the majority and grinding the majority under the boot-heel of a corrupt ruling elite, besides the number of people affected?
I have nothing against a republic that a lot more regulation (to prevent corruption) wouldn't cure, but in lieu of that, it's no better than representational, or direct democracy and (in practice), probably worse than direct democracy. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 9:35:22 AM |
Until and unless someone can come up with a form of pure democracy which does not, nearly automatically, grind the minority under the boot-heel of a majority vote, it's a crappy idea that should be avoided at all costs.
" The Tyranny of the Majority " is an important point. There are several examples in the history of Greece where the majority voted in favor of things they later came to regret.
There is also the simple matter of practicality.
What issues are important enough to take a vote of the general populace ?
Should a general vote be taken just to decide whether to install a stop light at an intersection ? | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 10:09:02 AM |
But things have moved on, a lot. Most of us have the benefits of a job that gives us a reasonable amount of free time. Most of us have an education that gives us the ability to make decisions. Most of us have access to knowledge that allows us to know much of the issues involved. So we now have the time and the ability to contribute to those decisions. If you replaced "most of us" with "hardly anyone of us" or "precious few", the answer would be obvious, to the rest of us. It won't be possible for a democracy to act wisely without it being representational until the people in it are educated to their potential rather than perversely to match the shape of a Bell curve, which is done to staff the economy in its present form. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 11:06:32 AM | "Thanks to things like the telephone voting, postal votes, email, the internet, and interactive cable TV, most of us have the capacity to vote on issues. Programmes like American Pop Idol, and Strictly Dancing, regularly rely on viewers phoning or texting in their votes. So we have the ability to vote, and we already vote on many such TV programmes. So why aren't we doing the same with democracy?" - Post #1
For a second I'll work under the assumption that direct democracy is even something that would be beneficial.....
Those shows don't care if someone rigs the vote, votes multiple times, or does anything else to adversely effect the 'fairness' of the system. They have no need (or even the interest) to secure their system from vote-tampering. We do.
The cost / difficulty of providing a relatively secure and reliable system for the general population to cast a ballot JUST ONCE A YEAR and on only a few specific issues, is already immense. If we found a reliable way to securely deliver votes through the internet AND secure the the counting process, then we might be able to move somewhat in the direction of direct democracy. Unfortunately I don't think that your assessment of the reliability of off-site electronic voting is very accurate. And I don't see us having the means to adequately create and especially monitor such an ever-changing, and ever vulnerable ballot behemoth any time soon. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 11:50:50 AM |
So we have the ability to vote, and we already vote on many such TV programmes. So why aren't we doing the same with democracy?
We aren't happy with much of what our politicians decide for us. We feel many are corrupt, and just as many are not making competent decisions. So why should we leave it just up to them?
Because on many of the issues that effect the vast majority of the people, there is much more information that those elected officials have access to that the average person does not.
Even with things such as C-span, cnn, and fox news we as a people still do not have all the facts and information to be able to make an informed choice on many of the situations. This is most previlent in international matters, which happen to be the many things that a great many of the public wish to have a say in.
Simple terms...
The term top secret is stamped on any information that COULD be damaging to the US IF it was allowed to be known by the public which could lead to it also winding up in the hands of other entities like maybe those on an oposing side of a situation.
Since much of the information that is and could be used to base a choice on a vote is basically listed as Top Secret since it could cause harm if it was not that means only those with that assigned level of clearance would have access to it for use in the decicion making process.
Obviously people like senators would need access to much of that information to be able to make informed choices for the people in their districts but they have also had to go through the clearance proticals and information training to ensure that they fully understand the detriments and punishments should they take it upon themselves to reveal information that has been deamed sensitive.
In a nut shell...
They have more information than the average person does. When you have more information then the chances are much higher that you will be able to make a better informed decision regarding the matters at hand.
We as the public do not have access for obvious reasons. So a detriment would be in allowing people that are less informed to be granted the chance to decide on an issue.
These are my informed opinions on the matter. Hope it helps. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 12:03:18 PM |
We as the public do not have access for obvious reasons. So a detriment would be in allowing people that are less informed to be granted the chance to decide on an issue.
When you lose transparency of government to things like "national security", it becomes easy to screw the people by simply couching your criminal activities under that umbrella.
The public is left to trust that their "representatives" are working in their best interests. Considering how trustworthy politicians are, I think it's a safe bet that much of the stuff is classed "secret" because what's being done is NOT in your best interests and they don't want you to know about it. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 12:25:17 PM | When you lose transparency of government to things like "national security", it becomes easy to screw the people by simply couching your criminal activities under that umbrella.
You can't lose something that you never had. It has never been a secret that there are secrets. The veil has always been there. If something has the ability to cause harm to the operation of the governing bodies then yes it is hidden behind the veil.
However, it is not totally secret. People with powers to step in and handle issues are within that loop operating behind that veil. People routinly assume if something is hidden then it is criminal but that is not always the case and due to things that have happened in the past proticals get put in place to prevent those things from happening.
We as a public do have a say in who we allow behind that veil. They are the people that we vote in. If you are voting in someone that you do not trust to conduct themselves in a manor befitting the responsibilities that you are entrusting them with then you are just as much at fault.
The public is left to trust that their "representatives" are working in their best interests. Considering how trustworthy politicians are, I think it's a safe bet that much of the stuff is classed "secret" because what's being done is NOT in your best interests and they don't want you to know about it.
Correct, you are left to trust that they are working in your best interest. This is sad to say but Politics is training people to be professional liars. It is nessesary because if they do not sometimes lie to prevent releasing information that has been deemed as detrimental if leaked then they face long jail times or worse treason.
It is a balance of what is best for those that you represent and your ability to be there to represent those people.
Think this way. You are representing your people. You have a choise to reveal something that you think would be in the best interest of the people BUT..... If you do reveal it then you lose your ability to be there for your people.
So you have a tough choice to make. You can do more good for your people to remain in your position than you could from a jail cell. What would you choose? To lose your ability to be there to do the most good for your people and your ability to ever be granted the chance again over one mistake.
ORRRRR You shut your mouth, make a choice that is the best one for those you represent while still allowing you to stay out of jail so that you can be there for future choices.
It is rarely an easy choice for those in that part of society to make but still it is the way it is due to it having to be that way to protect MORE people than if the veil was not there.
Just my opinions. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 1:40:40 PM | | Only Canada, England, India and the U.S. still adhere to the old 'first past the post' politics where every other fuctioning democracy has proportional representation. It's something these holdover countries desperately need. The system would work much, much better with PR. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 2:13:23 PM | @scorpiomover:
We could have politicians AND the people voting on bills, and that might bring a lot of bills back in line with what the people really need.
What do you think? Do you think we need access to allow people to vote on political decisions and bills passed in Parliament and Congress?
They have that in the USA now, in California, with their "prop" voting system - and the state's been paralysed ever since.
- pass a law that you can't raise taxes.
- pass a law that requires state funds for A, B, or C
what happens? the state goes increasingly into debt, because there is no legal way that it CANNOT go into debt.
- pass a law that forbids building of new coal generation facilities.
- pass a law that forbids building of new nuclear generation facilities.
- pass a law against windfarms (they kill birds, and birds are people too, you know).
What happens? Severe power shortages, and energy prices going through the roof.
What you wind up with is not better government, but something more accurately described as bureaucratic anarchy. You have the worst of both worlds - a large bureaucracy, AND a government that has no power.
@nipoleon:
Unfortunately, it has to be said that most of the public is lazy and stupid. Until the general populace demonstrates they can be trusted to vote wisely, I'd be against it.
Is it because they are lazy and stupid, or because they don't see any difference between the Republican lazy & stupid guy and the Democratic lazy and stupid guy?
What you *really* need, is on each ballot have
a) republican
b) democrat
c) d) NONE OF THE ABOVE.
The only way you can register disapproval right now, in every democracy that I'm aware of, is a) spoil your ballot and appear to be too stupid to know how to mark a ballot properly, or b) don't vote, and be called lazy and stupid.
@desertrhino:
The problem with a purely democratic government becomes, very rapidly, the plight of the minority.
Until and unless someone can come up with a form of pure democracy which does not, nearly automatically, grind the minority under the boot-heel of a majority vote, it's a crappy idea that should be avoided at all costs.
Actually, you're wrong there - pure democracy does not preclude legal or constitutional protections.
@~DREAMS~:
Good summary, and excellent points.
@lecutter:
Only Canada, England, India and the U.S. still adhere to the old 'first past the post' politics where every other fuctioning democracy has proportional representation. It's something these holdover countries desperately need. The system would work much, much better with PR.
That is very debatable. Is a PR system "fairer"? For some definitions of fair, yes. But it also has a tendency to make for unstable governments, and can make a country, in practical terms, ungovernable. (Think Italy ... HOW many governments since WWII?)
If you think the tyranny of the majority in FPTP systems is bad, what do you think about the practical effect in many countries that have PR (think Israel), where the parliament is so heavily splintered that the tail winds up wagging the dog? Major parties wind up selling out their own supporters, and therefore the wishes of the majority of the population, to suck up to fringe lunatics because they really, really need those 2 extra seats to form the government. That's why you still have settlements being built in Gaza, and on the West Bank, even when most Israelis think it's a stupid idea ... all because the government needs to appease some radical religious groups for that extra 2 or 3 seats. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 3:27:45 PM | Has it occurred to anyone that the members of Congress are very often related? That Bush, Clinton, AND Obama are all related? The politicians are an elitist privileged inherited class, that are part of the upper echelon of society. The definition of such a group is an ARISTOCRACY. We basically have the same system that we used to before we had democracy, because nobles also had their own voting in Parliament, also voted for the needs of their people, and also had to help their people to some extent, because if they didn't, the people would revolt, the crops didn't get sown, and the noble would have no income.
Long live the "noble" politicians, eh?
RE Msg: 16 by NotGorshkovAgain:
They have that in the USA now, in California, with their "prop" voting system - and the state's been paralysed ever since.
- pass a law that you can't raise taxes.
- pass a law that requires state funds for A, B, or C
what happens? the state goes increasingly into debt, because there is no legal way that it CANNOT go into debt.
- pass a law that forbids building of new coal generation facilities.
- pass a law that forbids building of new nuclear generation facilities.
- pass a law against windfarms (they kill birds, and birds are people too, you know).
What happens? Severe power shortages, and energy prices going through the roof.
What you wind up with is not better government, but something more accurately described as bureaucratic anarchy. You have the worst of both worlds - a large bureaucracy, AND a government that has no power. I think you will find that there are a number of factors in California ballot propositions that make it ineffective, because it requires more than 50% of the voters approving a referendum. I think you can agree that this might be too far to go. But should we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Should we just keep all our decisions in the hands of an aristocracy that doesn't listen to us, and doesn't even vote with reason, but with what makes no sense, but looks good?
Surely there is a middle way between 2 extremes, yes?
If you think the tyranny of the majority in FPTP systems is bad, what do you think about the practical effect in many countries that have PR (think Israel), where the parliament is so heavily splintered that the tail winds up wagging the dog? Major parties wind up selling out their own supporters, and therefore the wishes of the majority of the population, to suck up to fringe lunatics because they really, really need those 2 extra seats to form the government. That's why you still have settlements being built in Gaza, and on the West Bank, even when most Israelis think it's a stupid idea ... all because the government needs to appease some radical religious groups for that extra 2 or 3 seats. I lived in Israel for 4.5 years. PR in Israel does mean that elections are often hung between the the main Left party and the main Right party, and so majorities usually require coalitions, either with them, which is rare, or with the party with the biggest share of the vote joining with a number of small fringe parties. However, AFAIK, most fringe parties are not in favour of the West Bank and Gaza settlements, rather, the reverse, because what annoys most Israelis is that it's usually the religious parties who swing the votes, and they are mostly of the opinion that all of Israel should be run by religious law anyway. The arguments that I heard about the West Bank was that 1) if we give the land to the Arabs, then they MIGHT leave us alone, and 2) that's a pretty big gamble to give away land that would put you a stone's throw away from a Ketusha, with people whose leaders keep saying they won't stop the violence until Israel ceases to exist entirely. Do you have any specific proof that the fringe parties that swung hung elections were pro the settlements, and the only parties that were pro the settlements? | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 4:55:55 PM |
I think you will find that there are a number of factors in California ballot propositions that make it ineffective, because it requires more than 50% of the voters approving a referendum. I think you can agree that this might be too far to go.
Woah ..... are you trying to say that the problem is that it requires MORE than 50% of the votes? Do you honestly think it would be better if LESS then 50% was required? That would be a whole new definition of masochism.
Surely there is a middle way between 2 extremes, yes?
Personally, I don't think there is. But that's beside the point - I was making a comment to a previous poster who has suggest exactly this as a possible solution.
Do you have any specific proof that the fringe parties that swung hung elections were pro the settlements, and the only parties that were pro the settlements?
I was not trying to make the case that this happens every election - it does not. But there have been elections in the past where exactly this sort of thing HAS happened, which was my only point - PR has a tendency to substitute the tyranny of the minority for tyranny of the majority. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 5:02:59 PM | What do you think? Do you think we need access to allow people to vote on political decisions and bills passed in Parliament and Congress?
No and Chretien made a very good argument for this. Having input is one thing but the majority can not be allowed to have their way on every decision because what the majority wants is not always what the majority needs nor what is good for long term planning. Minority groups could be persecuted due to a "mood" the majority may be in. This not only hurts them but puts more pressure on systems we have to cope with groups under this type of pressure.
Imagine if people were given a chance to vote on the management of native affairs which is under federal control.
1. They have no idea of the history that got things to this point so don't see that hands were pretty much tied to do anything about the situation until a decade a go and real movement has only gained momentum in the last 5 years.
2. They don't realize that human rights only came into affect on reserves last summer. They don't see the connection natives see, with what happens in places where you human rights just don't apply. Especially when that society is being led by a very large population who was taught to abuse by being abused by the Residential School system. People who are abused are likely to be abusers. Imagine this going on in a place where the human rights act just doesn't apply. Now that it does, many natives are taking advantage of it and making native government accountable for its actions. This is a huge positive step in the right direction towards independence and prosperity.
3. They don't realize that natives realize already that dependency is a major issue so have strategic plans in place to capacity build and turn things around. They have very sound and well-researched economic development strategies that will take 10 years which are underway and have been for enough years we are seeing positive results.
4. They don't see how part of these plans are to work cooperatively with surrounding communities to create spin-off affects which will benefit them and create win/win situations.
Instead, they just see the failures because the news doesn't usually report about the good stuff and that is all they know. They'd likely take a hard line and cut back funding. In fact, its the opposite of what studies have shown is productive for them. There does need to be increased accountability but to harm the programs that are helping the situation is sabotaging progress.
The majority of the people who vote now need to get their priorities straightened out. This would give this group power over others and most likely cause setbacks.
That being said, I think there needs to be more distinction between what politicians do and what administration does. Quite often we have politicians making promises that are causing administrative nightmares. This costs the tax payer a lot of money. I think we need to start thinking of our politicians as team members to a partially static team as opposed to the leaders of that team.
As representatives, they bring your point of view to the table but decision needs to be more by consensus of administration and politicians as opposed to just politicians. If they are doing their work based on the guidance they receive from their team, then that needs to be acknowledged because it doesn't appear that way in the House of Commons. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 5:22:30 PM | nipoleon:
" The Tyranny of the Majority " is an important point. There are several examples in the history of Greece where the majority voted in favor of things they later came to regret.
There is also the simple matter of practicality.
What issues are important enough to take a vote of the general populace ?
Should a general vote be taken just to decide whether to install a stop light at an intersection ?
Who wins Big Brother or Survior or American Idol are perfectly fine areas where the general populace can decide a winner. But until their apathy dwindles to a point that people will make an informed decision instead of the one that Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher pushes at them, we need some form of represenational government.
Really, are we going to leave the debates about abortion, capital punishment, bailouts, foreign policy and global warming in the hands of the the average voter today? I mean, we can't even vote for honorable representatives in our government now.
The form of government is not the issue, the apathy and lack of knowledge of the voting population is the issue.
As Pogo said, "I have met the enemy and he is us." | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 6:53:42 PM | ^^^ I think we need to start asking ourselves why we have no honest politicians to vote for.
It's not like everyone who might be willing to go into politics are dishonest. It's that being honest is considered a liability in politics. Who made it a liability? Us.....
We take our right to vote as a right to cast personal character judgment on others instead of focusing on whether they are qualified to do the job. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 7:20:00 PM |
It's not like everyone who might be willing to go into politics are dishonest
There are honest people in politics, but they are usually kept "out of the loop." Even those who make it to the highest levels might be pretty honest people who really want to serve their constituents. However, even The Canadian Prime Minister or the US President are not really in charge. They only work for the people who really run the show. They may be "allowed" some freedom of movement, but by and large, they are forced to implement the policies they are told to. Whether by bribery, or blackmail, or out & out extortion, I'm certain they don't even get into office without their masters having the necessary leverage to ensure they do as they are told.
Those of us in Canada should be reminded that our elected "representatives" take no oath of service to the people. Their oath is to "Her Majesty" (a corporation sole). Even our "country" is a corporation (it's listed with Dun & Bradstreet - check it out). Being a citizen means being an employee of a corporation. So all we are doing when we vote for someone is choosing which candidate is going to be our "boss." He doesn't work for us, we work for him and he works for (and takes an oath to) "Her Majesty." | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 7:59:16 PM |
There are honest people in politics
I disagree. The very nature of the politics behind politics breeds dishonesty. A lot of being a politician has to do with your ability to negotiate and you don't negotiate by spilling the beans.
That's not even going into the corporate dynamics of ... sometimes good people do bad things or associate with bad people. If you addressed the larger issues going on you expose not just the bad, but the good ones involved too. So corruption can quite often get its protection just by associating with people you don't want to hurt. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 8:07:09 PM | Great original post. I think that the system needs to be changed, how I don't know. Wait isn't that what Cali thinks? I like California, but they just don't have the balls to kick out all the illegals, if they did you wouldn't have near the dirt on them and they would be proving your point as to why a direct democracy could work.
I think the majority of the things we should vote on don't involve or exclude the minority. Lets face it the people who think health care is screwed are the majority. The people who think we need to be more fiscally responsible are the majority. The people that think we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil are the majority.
At what point in time does the constitution become outdated? We already don't follow it, so does that mean we should re-write it.
The two party system is soooo screwed that we don't even know who represents us. When you are having a problem with that, then there needs to be more choices. Why is it that the democrat and republican are the only ones who have a chance come election day? That is the sad part. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 8:53:20 PM | | woah, woah, hold on a minute here, lol, you're implying that what we got going right now is democratic? If everyone votes yeah maybe we got democracy in some form, but with the amount of un-elected lawmakers appointed by ruling partys and having militarys that are their own seperate entity there is an underlying framework of guidelines that will always govern each society. Ever notice who ever seems to get elected keeps right on with the same anitcs the last guy was up to or it gets worse? Canada is a great example of this | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
