I would hope that the reason this is needed does not have to be explained. But if you haven't been paying attention for the last decade....
-the majority of the American People were opposed to impeaching Bill Clinton. He was impeached.
-the majority of the American People were opposed to NAFTA. NAFTA goes through.
- the majority were opposed to the assault weapons ban. The ban goes through.
-the majority was opposed to the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. The tax cuts go through.
-the majority are opposed to keeping US troops in Iraq. US troops remain there.
-the majority are opposed to the bail out of Wall Street. Wall Street gets bailed out.
Is it just me, or is representative democracy a dead idea? When our elected representatives can no longer address the needs or wants of the people they represent, then isn't it time to move onto something better.
As the saying goes...why not eliminate the middle man? After all, the world's best expert on what YOU want is YOU.
But with anything, it's not that simple. There are common problems when talking about any kind of governance. Here are some of the problems that commonly come up.
1) direct democracy leads to mob rule. The founding fathers debated this as well when setting up our representative democracy. That is why they set up a Judicial branch of government. The role of the courts is to protect individual rights. The same would apply in a direct democracy.
2) if we're a direct democracy, then wouldn't we spend all of our spare time in meetings? Not necesarily. I'm suggesting we establish a direct democracy to keep a check on our representative democracy. Most of the work would still be done by our elected representatives, but the people would now have power over them.
3) Most people are too dumb to run government. yes, that's true. But that's only because people don't need to know how government works because they can't affect it. People would learn quickly if we had a direct democracy, just as people learn quickly how to do a new job that they've just been hired to do.
4) Isn't this impractical? Wouldn't we be standing in line at our polling place every day? No, we don't have to. The way we vote today is based upon 19th century methods, even with electronic voting machines. Today we have cell phones and e-mail. If we can securely transfer bank funds using these tools then we can securely vote using these tools as well. You could vote on 10 bills while having your morning coffee.
But what's most interesting about this, is that the likelihood is that if we had a direct democracy, then it wouldn't be long before there would be no more Republican party and no more Democratic party. No group of politicians would pick a group of ideas that they support or oppose and give people a choice between those two ideas. Instead, it would be the people who are picking the ideas. The politicians would be reduced to simple pencil pushers. Asking your represenative what political party he belongs to would make about as much difference as asking which political party your mailman belongs to.
What I'm suggesting is that the American people, through popular vote, should have the power to 1) propose laws, and upon a popular vote, said proposal become the law of the land, completely bypassing Congress and the President. The American people should have the power to recall (remove) any office holder. The American people should have the power to reject or overrule any decision made by the government, including laws, treaties, executive decisions, or appointments.
What do you think about this?
Americans have all the power they need. They vote the representatives into office and get to vote on them every two, four or six years.
Giving them additional powers would only invite more trouble.
I agree. Many members of Congress and the Senate are doing a poor job. Apparently, we all have to "screen" a little better before stepping into the voters' booth.
is California with their referendums and propositions and see what is happening. Close to a bankrupt state or is it bankrupt already, hard to tell.
History shows us that, direct democracy didn't and couldn't work in small city state of Greece so, what makes you think it will work in large country as ours.
People participating in democracy needs to elect representatives that are capable and hold them to deliver. If not, people need to throw the bums out as quickly as they put them their.
The problem is not with the type of democracy but it is with the people who are responsible for controlling it by forcing elected officials to perform and by keeping tight watch on them. The expectation of leaders is to make decisions that is beneficial to majority of the people and not just a subset based on their beliefs or to force unsavory legislation.
How would a direct democracy model work in this situation?
I would say, our major governance problem is constitutional problem which does not provide for majority rule. Change the senate from a rigid 2 per state to proportional representation, thing will get done. Why does RI, Vermont, WV, WY, SD, ND, NH with total population of approximately 7.3 million get 14 senators while CA 37M, Tx 24M, NY 19, FL 18 (108 M out of 304 M Total US; 35%) only get 8 senators?
In essence the senate does not represent people's majority, does it?
I agree that “the problem is not with the type of democracy” and that “it is with the people who are responsible for controlling it”. And I agree that we have a “constitutional problem”. But the problem is that our government is not following the US Constitution. The simple fact that we are involved in the UN is against the US Constitution. And that is just one example.
Adding to the problems in our government is the greed and corruption of our elected representatives solely for the purpose of their re-election efforts. We need to rid ourselves of those who are elected to office, and then do not “represent” their constituent’s views but are more concerned about their re-election “cauldrons”. Holding them to a higher standard makes sense to me, but most people just vote by “name recognition”. How do we go about getting more people involved in the political process? A viable solution is term limits. That will assist us in getting the representation we deserve.
And what you described as “our major governance problem” is exactly how the US House of Representatives is compiled.
A Constitutional problem? The U.N.? I'm guessing you've never read Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.
Adding term limits to Congress is a dead idea. For instance, how would you suppose term limits gets passed Congress? The GOP pushed term limits for decades, and then they became the majority and they shut up about it REAL quick.
Then you have the added problem of how does Congress figure out seniority with term limits? How do you figure out who will be the chairman or this or that committee if everyone there is a newb?
The greed and corruption to re-elections goes away with direct democracy. There is no need to utilize greed and corruption to gain power, because once elected you won't have that power anyway.
Direct democracy is how you get it done.
House Joint resolution 73 in the 104th Congress (1995). Term limits Constitutional amendment to impose a 12 year limit on Congressional members. Required 288 votes to pass (2/3rds). It garnered 82% support from the GOP but only 19% from the Dems. Even if ALL Republicans had voted “aye” (230) there still was not enough Dem support to pass (38 total).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.J.RES.73:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HJ00073:@@@L&summ2=m&
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll277.xml
And when did the GOP ever take up the issue since 1995? They had one hell of a majority after the 2000 election.
You said, "then they became the majority and they shut up about it REAL quick."
Your statement is patently false. I showed how and where they were anything but "shut up" during their first term. You said they only wanted term limits BEFORE they were in the majority. Not true.
In true marikod form, you now attempt to kick the debate further down the road, where the conditions of previous statements are no long in play.
Granted. The GOP quit trying. After Gingrich was removed they also started acting like Democrats, spending money right AND left. But none of that changes what YOU claimed.
You said, "then they became the majority and they shut up about it REAL quick."
Your statement is patently false. I showed how and where they were anything but "shut up" during their first term. You said they only wanted term limits BEFORE they were in the majority. Not true.
In true marikod form, you now attempt to kick the debate further down the road, where the conditions of previous statements are no long in play.
Granted. The GOP quit trying. After Gingrich was removed they also started acting like Democrats, spending money right AND left. But none of that changes what YOU claimed.
you find it frustrating.
Mislabeling something and then arguing the new and improper "facts"
Why single out Government. We the citizens are also filled greed and corruption in every day life. More people today are only driven by get rich quick mentality. It doesn't matter how, as long as they get rich quick.
We the citizens cannot single out politicians, government, and or business until we get our act straight.
We must hang with completely different crowds.
I agree, proportional representation would be far better than the winner takes all system we have now. Just look at how the electoral college is screwed to the states with smaller populations.
California's system is a bit of a mess. It needs far more disclosure. Switerland has a direct democracy (voter initiatives) and they don't seem to be in the same mess that California's in.
comparing Cali to Switzerland is just naive. One is isolated, mostly homogenous, and it's own country. Cali is about as diverse as you can get between race, creed, color, and heritage, and it is subject to Federal laws as well
actually, unlike California, Switzerland has 3 major languages (German, Italian, and French), as well as nationalities from all over Europe.
They may speak three languages, but that doesn't mean that they are from three different worlds, as there is a lot more similarity in European countries than California. Try checking in with a group of Californians who consist of whites (of 50-100 years living in America), then Mexicans, then Filipinos, then Vietnamese, then Somailis, then Koreans, then Iranians.
Would you also be willing to accept their health care system which is totally run by private enterprise (only government involvement is mandated purchases and low income subsidization of premiums?)
Everyone must pay their own bills and then wait to be reimburesed.
The success that the United States has experienced and all the benefits the world has subsequently reaped from same is due in large part to the sovereignty that each and every State has managed to retain. Take away the Senate’s composition or the Electoral College and it’s over.
Besides, where would you guys misplace your anger then? Mississippi and Alabama would be assimilated.
Which is the reason for all of the deadlock. Congress is not.
Alabama 4.6M, Miss 2.9. Both already in the low population category.
Why would it be over? Grandiose statement without rational reasoning.
Why would it invite more trouble? What trouble would be the likely result? How practical is it to screen somebody a little better? Should we be electing saints to elected office? You know that old saying right? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The kicker is that the degree of power is equally proportional to the degree of corruption. If you want to elminate corruption then you equally distribute power.
Are you basing this on opinion poll results?
I feel polls are useful, but the results can be biased depending how the questions are asked.
Direct democracy does work on a small scale. The New England Town Meetings are an example to direct democracy.
But on a large scale (such as a country of 300 million people), I think it would be difficult to implement.
Most people do not pay attention to issues, and are too easily swayed by slogans and sound bites without taking the time to learn the facts.
Any attempt at direct democracy on a national level would lead to more issue adds and result in people making more choices based on Madison Ave. Add Campaigns.
No, I'm not basing this on opinion polls. I'm not talking about legislating via opinion polls. That would be a horrible idea.
Yes, direct democracy can work quite well on the local level. If organized properly it can work on the federal level as well, with very little effort.
The reason why there are slogans and sound bites is to manipulate people within a representative system.
A direct democracy could lead to tons of issue ads, but it doesn't have to. I would be in favor of banning all issue ads with such a system.
So, get rid of representational democracy AND freedom of speech...BRILLIANT!
First you'd pull the Religion clause, now Free Speech.
said several threads ago that Americans were stupid? Now you want to turn over policy decisions, legislation passage, and referendum ability to these same stupid Americans? A little consistentcy, I believe, is in order, don't you think?