I was thinking.. ( ha ha somebody say "for once!") That we live in a democratic-republic here in america. What if we lived in a pure democracy? Think about a state government, what if instead of electing people to represent us, the people voted on issues themselves? That would definitely represent the people on every issue instead of one person representing the entire state. In most political elections, someone is voted in - not because the majority of the people like his platform, but because they are the lesser of two evils. Does any other country do this? Why didn't our founding fathers make it a pure democracy? And what would be the consequences of this besides the lack of instant decision making like national security issues?
that's also called a direct democracy. One country who has it is Switzerland. They are doing great, aren't they? @soniqhost.com why whouldn't it work?
The process to let everyone vote on everything would really slow down the ability to pass new laws. After a while I think people would get tired of going to the polls ever other day, hell they have trouble going once every 4 years.
you don't need to vote on everything, the government can do that through elected representatives, what we need is a way of effectively challanging any law and deciding for ourselfs the way we want our countries to go. It should also be made much easyer for us to fire any elected representative because currently elections are like giving our leaders a blank check...once they got it they can do whatever they want. the problem is also that we elect officials by their views...we should have the power in our hands and elect officials by their ability to accomplish whatever tasks we, the people, give them we have that problem in Romania too...it's because our votes don't really make any difference. You can never know what secret agendas politicians have and once they get into office they can do pretty much whatever they want
sounds good but it is probably way too impractical for a country like the US, where there are so many different states which can be poles apart in their views. britain might be a safer experiment. but i still think it would be way too difficult to achieve.
the pole that's supported my the majority would win. Or do you think the politicians views fit your interests better?
The problem with your idea above, IUL, of a direct means to challenge every law is that you end up in recall and referendum hell, with endless cycles of "majority" and "minority" views flipping sides, with the winds. In other words, let's say a majority of the people want Law X, which is passed. The minority is pissed off. Minority institutes issues of redress - initiative, recall, referendum. It either passes, with the old law now tossed, the "direct democracy representative" of your model recalled, or an initiative essentially gutting or countervailing the old law is instituted; or, you simply end up in a mire of indecision while this direct democratic process plays out. I don't think this works well in a large society; furthermore, it is easy to see that you simply supplant one "corruption" for another - campaigns based on emotionalism and marketing are just as prone to corruption in an initiative, recall election, or referendum process as they are in protest to laws or representatives in a republic. I would say, more. A look at any city level recall spat is illustration enough.
The Founders envisioned a wonderful system. Unfortunately, We the People have not done a good job of being educated on the law, or holding our politicians accountable for creating law which is counter to the Constitution. A pure democracy is hell. The tyranny of the majority rules the minority. It's actually centralization of the decision making process (one referendum, one vote) which is anti-Republic, a system which is decentralized by design. America's greatest strengths have been the rule of law, the judicial process, and fundamental guaranteed rights that cannot be overridden by a simple majority vote. The Founders were truly fantastically educated and moral men considering the time period they came from. Many of them would put today's Congressmen and Senators to shame in a political, philosophical or economic debate.
Haha, yeah, a direct democracy would be horribly slow; but is that really so different then our system today? The new congress pledged an end to the Iraq war, but haven't been able to do it*, even though a majority of American's want it... If we had a direct vote, the majority would be able to pass a bill, as that's what the citizens want... * = personally, I don't think the Dem's want and end to the war yet.. They need the war, in order to oppose it, to win the '08 elections...
I have to chime in on this. The government passing laws slowly is a good idea. There is a reason it is such an arduous process to amend the Constitution. Frankly, Congress passes so much stupid, harmful and illegal legislation, it might do them some good to slow down. Almost every time they pass a law, budget or resolution, we are worse off.
Yeah, I agree, guerilla. I distinguish the "slow and arduous" process of lawmaking from frenetic and sheer chaos, which is what I foresee, anyway, if we become a nation of nothing but initiatives, recalls, and referendums.
Is the tyranny of the minority (I'm talking about the politicians here because they often pursue their own , I'm sure many of the wars in history would have been avoided if the people had something to say about it, afterall war is the sport of kings) any better ? I agree with having a constitution that guarantees the fundamental rights that can't be overridden by majority vote and I think that can be achieved in a direct democracy too, infact it has been achieved already, look at Switzerland. But think about how many things about America you never got to express your opinion about (in a way that actually matters like actually having some influence). You oppose the war in Iraq right? Well, many people oppose it, maybe it's even a majority, yet the only way of accomplishing the people's will is by electing someone who promices to do that. But what if he/she doesn't do it after they get into office? What do you do then? NOTHING. Because you can't do anything in a non-direct democracy. And why should you be forced to express your opinions through somebody else? Because you will never find a person who you agree with about absolutely everything 100%. Maybe you have an issue that very very important to you (and you will vote anyone who shares your point of view about that issue) and there's only one candidate who also shares your opinion about that matter but has completely opposite views than you about everything else? Why should you be forced to vote for someone like that? Why not vote on major individual issues and when you elect someone you elect him/her for his/hers capability of fulfilling the tasks they get from their people? You support Ron Paul right? What if he wins the presidential elections and then doesn't fulfill his promises about withdrawing from Iraq? Will you even bother voting again? What would be the point? What's the point in just hopeing there will eventually be a honest politician that will do what he sais? Why not take the power in our hands? Isn't that the principle of a democracy anyway? To fulfill the will of the majority as long as it doesn't mess with other peoples rights? true why doesn't that happen in Switzerland today? They can challenge any law if they gather 50 000 signatures within 100 days. You could also set up some rules to prevent that like allowing a revoting on an issue that's been already decided for a few years. I can't understand how you think handing a blank check to the ellected people at the beginning of their mandates is any better. It seems like you don't want to have any power in your state. If that's so why do you even bother voting?
It is a Representative Republic actually... Why not a pure democracy? For one, the founding fathers preferred order to chaos. In a true democracy there is no order. No laws. Completely freedom.. Freedom without some limitations is a guaranteed disaster. Also, if we all had to vote on every issue, nothing would ever get done. It's hard enough to get people to vote as it is.
No, it is a Representative Republic. According to the "Constitution", it is a "Representative Republic." That or you could call it a Representative Democratic Republic.
It is interesting to read that of the 240+ initiatives put to referendum, only about 10% have been approved, and of the ones approved, many are approved only on rewrite by the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Direct_democracy_in_Switzerland I'd like to pick up Kobach's book because my last study of Switzerland was 20+ years ago, and then it was largely on Zwingli and the Reformation in Switzerland (a course on renaissance and reformation history taught by DeMedici expert Dale Kent - fascinating course, but long time ago). I can only guess that either it truly is workable and our assumptions are b.s., or Switzerland's is a anomalous case, owing not only to its unique historical development, but to its its small scope as well (7.5 million people, 42K Km2 - with California alone having 34 million people and a footprint of 410Km2). I am wont to believe it is simply small enough to handle the logistics endemic to such a system. My other concern is voter turnout - with so many decisions to be made, on such a regular basis, I would intuit voter turnout would be very low under such a system - and looking it up, this is confirmed, bt at least one source found via an admittedly quick web search: out of 152 countries in a cross-national comparison, Switzerland ranked #142 in voter turnout. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/dem_par_ele_reg_vot_tur-parliamentary-elections-registered-voter-turnout The problem I see here is what I touched on in my first post above, the propensity for a simply "different" corruption to replace the kind found in representative democracies - a corruption of highly mobilized interest groups drumming issues to a largely apathetic populace. Anyway, couple of thoughts, but a very intriguing question. Good topic, Nate, and good post, Iul.