Declaration of Independence Excerpt.

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You really want a direct democracy where the mob rules and the minority's rights aren't protected at all?

Direct Democracy is the complete opposite of America's founding and what makes America a great nation.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinnner......." -Thomas Jefferson

The parts of the Constitution that protect the rights of minorities and those parts that specify how legislation is arrived at are completely separate. If we did have a direct democracy, it would involve replacing Article II, not the Bill of Rights. A law passed by the People's Virtual Assembly would be subject to the same restrictions as laws currently passed by Congress, e.g. it could not respect an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, or abridge freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, etc.

As for the quote by Jefferson, first, it goes against most of what Jefferson himself said and did, which for the most part promoted democracy, and secondly sheep always outnumber wolves. Those who object to democracy are usually wolves worried about being forced into vegetarianism, who only pretend to be sheep worried about becoming dinner.

The problem with direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy) up to this time is that it has been unworkable, not that it would violate the rights of minorities. Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and the people can only give their consent at the speed of communication. It's impossible to have the American people all crowd physically into a room and discuss issues, so we do it by proxy. But thanks to the Internet, it is now possible for the people to discuss issues in a virtual room.

Whether that will result in replacement of representative with direct democracy in the near future remains quite uncertain, but what is bound to happen is that we will see more direct democracy on a sub-governmental level, and more activities such as Occupy arising from democratic interchanges online.

That is all good but it still doesn't dispel the fact that the minority won't be protected under a direct democracy, even by the constition.

Say 51% of americans want to open up all sensitive lands in the united states to fossil fuel development................well that stinks for those, who are currently in the minority right now, who would try to stop it from happening (such as the pipeline)

With a direct democracy that oil pipeline would already be being built along with a giant wall along our souther border........with a constitutional republic howerver the minority's position in both those areas is protected.

 

[Ringel05]

You really want a direct democracy where the mob rules and the minority's rights aren't protected at all?

Direct Democracy is the complete opposite of America's founding and what makes America a great nation.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinnner......." -Thomas Jefferson

The parts of the Constitution that protect the rights of minorities and those parts that specify how legislation is arrived at are completely separate. If we did have a direct democracy, it would involve replacing Article II, not the Bill of Rights. A law passed by the People's Virtual Assembly would be subject to the same restrictions as laws currently passed by Congress, e.g. it could not respect an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, or abridge freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, etc.

As for the quote by Jefferson, first, it goes against most of what Jefferson himself said and did, which for the most part promoted democracy, and secondly sheep always outnumber wolves. Those who object to democracy are usually wolves worried about being forced into vegetarianism, who only pretend to be sheep worried about becoming dinner.

The problem with direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy) up to this time is that it has been unworkable, not that it would violate the rights of minorities. Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and the people can only give their consent at the speed of communication. It's impossible to have the American people all crowd physically into a room and discuss issues, so we do it by proxy. But thanks to the Internet, it is now possible for the people to discuss issues in a virtual room.

Whether that will result in replacement of representative with direct democracy in the near future remains quite uncertain, but what is bound to happen is that we will see more direct democracy on a sub-governmental level, and more activities such as Occupy arising from democratic interchanges online.

Our system protects the minority, direct democracy does not.

Tell that to my Cherokee ancestors. Or to blacks, kept as slaves for centuries and made second-class citizens for a century afterward. Or to the Japanese-Americans put in concentration camps during World War II. Or to women, or to gay people.

Your statement is historical nonsense.

Yeah let's make our talking points based on the past, not on the progress that has been made due to our system of government. That keeps things in a modern perspective...........

 

[rightwinger]

The United States has existed for over 235 years and has a Government that is superior to any nation on earth

Why would anyone want to change it?

 

[FA_Q2]

You really want a direct democracy where the mob rules and the minority's rights aren't protected at all?

Direct Democracy is the complete opposite of America's founding and what makes America a great nation.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinnner......." -Thomas Jefferson

The parts of the Constitution that protect the rights of minorities and those parts that specify how legislation is arrived at are completely separate. If we did have a direct democracy, it would involve replacing Article II, not the Bill of Rights. A law passed by the People's Virtual Assembly would be subject to the same restrictions as laws currently passed by Congress, e.g. it could not respect an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, or abridge freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, etc.

As for the quote by Jefferson, first, it goes against most of what Jefferson himself said and did, which for the most part promoted democracy, and secondly sheep always outnumber wolves. Those who object to democracy are usually wolves worried about being forced into vegetarianism, who only pretend to be sheep worried about becoming dinner.

The problem with direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy) up to this time is that it has been unworkable, not that it would violate the rights of minorities. Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and the people can only give their consent at the speed of communication. It's impossible to have the American people all crowd physically into a room and discuss issues, so we do it by proxy. But thanks to the Internet, it is now possible for the people to discuss issues in a virtual room.

Whether that will result in replacement of representative with direct democracy in the near future remains quite uncertain, but what is bound to happen is that we will see more direct democracy on a sub-governmental level, and more activities such as Occupy arising from democratic interchanges online.

Our system protects the minority, direct democracy does not.

Tell that to my Cherokee ancestors. Or to blacks, kept as slaves for centuries and made second-class citizens for a century afterward. Or to the Japanese-Americans put in concentration camps during World War II. Or to women, or to gay people.

Your statement is historical nonsense.

In order for a direct democracy to work the people have to both be educated and interested in their government. Go out in the public and ask them some simple questions. You will be floored at the answers you get. I would be all for a direct democracy once people prove to not be complete morons. It is not looking good.


I would expect that the people I work with would have an above average knowledge in how the government works because of the nature of my job. Around 30 percent of the people in my shop cannot name the three branches of government. Over half had no idea what the super committee was, what sequestration was or had any idea what the committee was looking over. Less than 15 percent can name their representatives.

Then there are the people on the streets:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofgaa1_lk8I]ABC News Story on Uninformed Voters - YouTube[/ame]

Do you remember when almost no one could name Obama's running platform?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCXot2HQT00&feature=endscreen&NR=1]Obama Voters - Brainwashed With Change - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_JJLLfTR8I&feature=related]Idiots who voted for Obama - YouTube[/ame]

And lets get some love from the other side...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0]Misconceptions of Obama fuel Republican campaign - 13 Oct 08 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTMDVwxNDis&feature=related]Glenn Beck supporters at Tea Party rally don't quite know why they support Beck - YouTube[/ame]

No, until people actually show they can get off their asses enough to pick reasonable candidates we are a far cry from people actually understanding and voting for each bill individually.


Don't get me wrong, I would love to true democracy here but the people are simply not ready for it and I do not think they ever will be. It is far too easy being an idiot and doing what you are told by whatever media outlet you prefer....

 

[FA_Q2]

The United States has existed for over 235 years and has a Government that is superior to any nation on earth

Why would anyone want to change it?

If you have not noticed, let me be the one to inform you that it is failing now....

Of course, we *could* go to the system used by the Roman Empire. It did last almost one thousand years if you include the Byzantine empire as well. I mean, you seemed to indicate that time had anything at all to do with it. It is also worth mentioning that the government 150 years ago bears little resemblance to what we have today but I digress....

 

[rightwinger]

The United States has existed for over 235 years and has a Government that is superior to any nation on earth

Why would anyone want to change it?

If you have not noticed, let me be the one to inform you that it is failing now....

Of course, we *could* go to the system used by the Roman Empire. It did last almost one thousand years if you include the Byzantine empire as well. I mean, you seemed to indicate that time had anything at all to do with it. It is also worth mentioning that the government 150 years ago bears little resemblance to what we have today but I digress....

We have the best form of Government in the world. Why would we want to change it ???

 

[FA_Q2]

The United States has existed for over 235 years and has a Government that is superior to any nation on earth

Why would anyone want to change it?

If you have not noticed, let me be the one to inform you that it is failing now....

Of course, we *could* go to the system used by the Roman Empire. It did last almost one thousand years if you include the Byzantine empire as well. I mean, you seemed to indicate that time had anything at all to do with it. It is also worth mentioning that the government 150 years ago bears little resemblance to what we have today but I digress....

We have the best form of Government in the world. Why would we want to change it ???

I don't want to change it. Just stating why there are so many that do. Truth be told, I want to go BACK to the government that made us the best nation in the world IMO with a few key changes. What we have now has a very serious chance of brining us down a road we do not want to be a part of.

 

[Dot Com]

take the $ and the revolving door aspect (future employment incentives) out of gov't for representatives AND staffers would be a good start. Until those things are done, all you're doing is rearranging the chairs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anyone agree/disagree with this?

Of course everyone agrees.

The disagreement is to the criteria justifying change.

Our system protects the minority, direct democracy does not.

Correct.

The Constitution and rule of law protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

The parts of the Constitution that protect the rights of minorities and those parts that specify how legislation is arrived at are completely separate. If we did have a direct democracy, it would involve replacing Article II, not the Bill of Rights. A law passed by the People's Virtual Assembly would be subject to the same restrictions as laws currently passed by Congress, e.g. it could not respect an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, or abridge freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, etc.

But ‘direct democracy’ would imply the elimination of the BoR and judicial review, as the courts are seen by many as in ‘conflict’ with the will of the majority. See: ‘activist judge,’ or ‘legislating from the bench,’ etc.

 

[spectrumc01]

You really want a direct democracy where the mob rules and the minority's rights aren't protected at all?

Direct Democracy is the complete opposite of America's founding and what makes America a great nation.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinnner......." -Thomas Jefferson

The parts of the Constitution that protect the rights of minorities and those parts that specify how legislation is arrived at are completely separate. If we did have a direct democracy, it would involve replacing Article II, not the Bill of Rights. A law passed by the People's Virtual Assembly would be subject to the same restrictions as laws currently passed by Congress, e.g. it could not respect an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, or abridge freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, etc.

As for the quote by Jefferson, first, it goes against most of what Jefferson himself said and did, which for the most part promoted democracy, and secondly sheep always outnumber wolves. Those who object to democracy are usually wolves worried about being forced into vegetarianism, who only pretend to be sheep worried about becoming dinner.

The problem with direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy) up to this time is that it has been unworkable, not that it would violate the rights of minorities. Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and the people can only give their consent at the speed of communication. It's impossible to have the American people all crowd physically into a room and discuss issues, so we do it by proxy. But thanks to the Internet, it is now possible for the people to discuss issues in a virtual room.

Whether that will result in replacement of representative with direct democracy in the near future remains quite uncertain, but what is bound to happen is that we will see more direct democracy on a sub-governmental level, and more activities such as Occupy arising from democratic interchanges online.

Our system protects the minority, direct democracy does not.

Tell that to my Cherokee ancestors. Or to blacks, kept as slaves for centuries and made second-class citizens for a century afterward. Or to the Japanese-Americans put in concentration camps during World War II. Or to women, or to gay people.

Your statement is historical nonsense.

In order for a direct democracy to work the people have to both be educated and interested in their government. Go out in the public and ask them some simple questions. You will be floored at the answers you get. I would be all for a direct democracy once people prove to not be complete morons. It is not looking good.


I would expect that the people I work with would have an above average knowledge in how the government works because of the nature of my job. Around 30 percent of the people in my shop cannot name the three branches of government. Over half had no idea what the super committee was, what sequestration was or had any idea what the committee was looking over. Less than 15 percent can name their representatives.

Then there are the people on the streets:


Do you remember when almost no one could name Obama's running platform?


And lets get some love from the other side...

No, until people actually show they can get off their asses enough to pick reasonable candidates we are a far cry from people actually understanding and voting for each bill individually.


Don't get me wrong, I would love to true democracy here but the people are simply not ready for it and I do not think they ever will be. It is far too easy being an idiot and doing what you are told by whatever media outlet you prefer....

The same uniformed people under this system would be the same uninformed under any system. The uninformed don't want to participate, they want to be led, so be it. The rest of us who want a voice in our government are tired of being silenced by the corrupt politicians we have in place now. A direct democracy may not end all corruption but it definately slow it down. If we wait for everyone to get up to speed, nothing will ever get done, just like now.

 

[spectrumc01]

The United States has existed for over 235 years and has a Government that is superior to any nation on earth

Why would anyone want to change it?

to make it better.

Look at the first of anything. The model T was great compared to the horse, but we didn't stop tinkering just because it was better than the horse. We saw we could make the Model T better and we did. The same could be said of our democracy. We modify our democracy with every new law.

 

[spectrumc01]

You really want a direct democracy where the mob rules and the minority's rights aren't protected at all?

Direct Democracy is the complete opposite of America's founding and what makes America a great nation.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinnner......." -Thomas Jefferson

The parts of the Constitution that protect the rights of minorities and those parts that specify how legislation is arrived at are completely separate. If we did have a direct democracy, it would involve replacing Article II, not the Bill of Rights. A law passed by the People's Virtual Assembly would be subject to the same restrictions as laws currently passed by Congress, e.g. it could not respect an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, or abridge freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, etc.

As for the quote by Jefferson, first, it goes against most of what Jefferson himself said and did, which for the most part promoted democracy, and secondly sheep always outnumber wolves. Those who object to democracy are usually wolves worried about being forced into vegetarianism, who only pretend to be sheep worried about becoming dinner.

The problem with direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy) up to this time is that it has been unworkable, not that it would violate the rights of minorities. Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and the people can only give their consent at the speed of communication. It's impossible to have the American people all crowd physically into a room and discuss issues, so we do it by proxy. But thanks to the Internet, it is now possible for the people to discuss issues in a virtual room.

Whether that will result in replacement of representative with direct democracy in the near future remains quite uncertain, but what is bound to happen is that we will see more direct democracy on a sub-governmental level, and more activities such as Occupy arising from democratic interchanges online.

That is all good but it still doesn't dispel the fact that the minority won't be protected under a direct democracy, even by the constition.

Say 51% of americans want to open up all sensitive lands in the united states to fossil fuel development................well that stinks for those, who are currently in the minority right now, who would try to stop it from happening (such as the pipeline)

With a direct democracy that oil pipeline would already be being built along with a giant wall along our souther border........with a constitutional republic howerver the minority's position in both those areas is protected.

The minority is the only one with a voice now. The wealthy minority is the only one whose voice seems to matter. It's time we all had an equal voice, regardless of the size of our bank accounts.

Who would get in to see a senator first? You or Donald Trump?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The United States has existed for over 235 years and has a Government that is superior to any nation on earth

Why would anyone want to change it?

That is the rightwinger I remember.....good to see you

I agree.....our system is great its the people running it whom we need to dissolve.

 

[rightwinger]

The United States has existed for over 235 years and has a Government that is superior to any nation on earth

Why would anyone want to change it?

to make it better.

Look at the first of anything. The model T was great compared to the horse, but we didn't stop tinkering just because it was better than the horse. We saw we could make the Model T better and we did. The same could be said of our democracy. We modify our democracy with every new law.

Exactly....our execution of Government has evolved to meet the needs of each succeeding generation. That is what makes our government so great

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The parts of the Constitution that protect the rights of minorities and those parts that specify how legislation is arrived at are completely separate. If we did have a direct democracy, it would involve replacing Article II, not the Bill of Rights. A law passed by the People's Virtual Assembly would be subject to the same restrictions as laws currently passed by Congress, e.g. it could not respect an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, or abridge freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, etc.

As for the quote by Jefferson, first, it goes against most of what Jefferson himself said and did, which for the most part promoted democracy, and secondly sheep always outnumber wolves. Those who object to democracy are usually wolves worried about being forced into vegetarianism, who only pretend to be sheep worried about becoming dinner.

The problem with direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy) up to this time is that it has been unworkable, not that it would violate the rights of minorities. Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and the people can only give their consent at the speed of communication. It's impossible to have the American people all crowd physically into a room and discuss issues, so we do it by proxy. But thanks to the Internet, it is now possible for the people to discuss issues in a virtual room.

Whether that will result in replacement of representative with direct democracy in the near future remains quite uncertain, but what is bound to happen is that we will see more direct democracy on a sub-governmental level, and more activities such as Occupy arising from democratic interchanges online.

That is all good but it still doesn't dispel the fact that the minority won't be protected under a direct democracy, even by the constition.

Say 51% of americans want to open up all sensitive lands in the united states to fossil fuel development................well that stinks for those, who are currently in the minority right now, who would try to stop it from happening (such as the pipeline)

With a direct democracy that oil pipeline would already be being built along with a giant wall along our souther border........with a constitutional republic howerver the minority's position in both those areas is protected.

The minority is the only one with a voice now. The wealthy minority is the only one whose voice seems to matter. It's time we all had an equal voice, regardless of the size of our bank accounts.

Who would get in to see a senator first? You or Donald Trump?

All people have a voice now, under a direct democracy the minority is silenced.

Sure that may be all good in this ONE ASPECT of governance you bring up but what about everywhere else....the majority of american's are against abortion for example, you could easily have abortion made illegal for the minority under a direct democracy in the USA.

I don't like it when people play games with our liberty, as it appears you are doing with your responses.

 

[FA_Q2]

The parts of the Constitution that protect the rights of minorities and those parts that specify how legislation is arrived at are completely separate. If we did have a direct democracy, it would involve replacing Article II, not the Bill of Rights. A law passed by the People's Virtual Assembly would be subject to the same restrictions as laws currently passed by Congress, e.g. it could not respect an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, or abridge freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, etc.

As for the quote by Jefferson, first, it goes against most of what Jefferson himself said and did, which for the most part promoted democracy, and secondly sheep always outnumber wolves. Those who object to democracy are usually wolves worried about being forced into vegetarianism, who only pretend to be sheep worried about becoming dinner.

The problem with direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy) up to this time is that it has been unworkable, not that it would violate the rights of minorities. Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and the people can only give their consent at the speed of communication. It's impossible to have the American people all crowd physically into a room and discuss issues, so we do it by proxy. But thanks to the Internet, it is now possible for the people to discuss issues in a virtual room.

Whether that will result in replacement of representative with direct democracy in the near future remains quite uncertain, but what is bound to happen is that we will see more direct democracy on a sub-governmental level, and more activities such as Occupy arising from democratic interchanges online.

That is all good but it still doesn't dispel the fact that the minority won't be protected under a direct democracy, even by the constition.

Say 51% of americans want to open up all sensitive lands in the united states to fossil fuel development................well that stinks for those, who are currently in the minority right now, who would try to stop it from happening (such as the pipeline)

With a direct democracy that oil pipeline would already be being built along with a giant wall along our souther border........with a constitutional republic howerver the minority's position in both those areas is protected.

The minority is the only one with a voice now. The wealthy minority is the only one whose voice seems to matter. It's time we all had an equal voice, regardless of the size of our bank accounts.

Who would get in to see a senator first? You or Donald Trump?

Who would get their bill passed in a direct democracy, the one that could afford commercial ads or the one that could not?

Direct democracy would make the money issue WORSE. No longer would corporations need to buy politicians souls. Public opinion is far cheaper...

 

[spectrumc01]

Anyone agree/disagree with this?

Of course everyone agrees.

The disagreement is to the criteria justifying change.

Our system protects the minority, direct democracy does not.

Correct.

The Constitution and rule of law protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

The parts of the Constitution that protect the rights of minorities and those parts that specify how legislation is arrived at are completely separate. If we did have a direct democracy, it would involve replacing Article II, not the Bill of Rights. A law passed by the People's Virtual Assembly would be subject to the same restrictions as laws currently passed by Congress, e.g. it could not respect an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, or abridge freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, etc.

But ‘direct democracy’ would imply the elimination of the BoR and judicial review, as the courts are seen by many as in ‘conflict’ with the will of the majority. See: ‘activist judge,’ or ‘legislating from the bench,’ etc.

The key words you use are "Would imply". If we held a constitutional convention that left judicial review in place, and the Bill of Rights we would not have to imply anything. A constitutional convention allows for a greater change than just addin or repeeling an ammendment.

"as the courts are seen by many as in ‘conflict’ with the will of the majority. "

This should read, " as the courts are seen by the, percieved many, as in ‘conflict’ with the will of the percieved majority.

"Legislating from the bench" and "Activist judges" are used when a minority of people disagree with a particular ruling. Just because you have a loud voice and get on tv more than everyone else does not mean you are the majority.

 

[rightwinger]

The United States has existed for over 235 years and has a Government that is superior to any nation on earth

Why would anyone want to change it?

That is the rightwinger I remember.....good to see you

I agree.....our system is great its the people running it whom we need to dissolve.

Our problem is not our form of Government, but the people that WE elect to represent us.

What will changing our form of government do to change the quality of people we elect?

 

[rightwinger]

Direct Democracy is government for morons


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

 

[Avatar4321]

Absolutely agree. It is time for another continental congress. It is time to move our democracy into the present, by reflecting todays needs and challenges. The implamentation of technology could and should move us to a more direct democracy instead of a representative democracy. Representative Democracy was good when it took a great deal of time to travel and communicate, such is not the case today. Technology can put the power where it should always have been, with us the people.

Sorry....Go Army.

We need less democracy, not more.

Wow...never thought I'd see someone ask for less democracy.

We fought the revolutionary war for the right to govern ourselves.
We fought WW I and WWII in defense of Democracy.
Now you want to tell me these men died for nothing.

No. They fought and died in defense of the Republic. Eliminating the checks and balances, which would be necessary to turn it into a Democracy, would quickly lead to despotic rule.

It would be a shame to destroy the Republic they fought hard to defend. Especially when Republics protect our liberty far more than Democracies do and can.