Declaration of Independence Excerpt.

[spectrumc01]

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.

How is the minority silenced if everyone gets a chance to voice their opinion?
We still have a bill of rights and a judicial system.
All we are doing is giving everyone a right to voice their opinion on every issue if they feel like participating. Under direct democracy we would have a right to tell our elected officials that we want to cut government spending. How nice would it have been to tell the super committee we don't care what you think we want the cuts and we want them now. Rather than letting twelve people who can't make a decision, decide our fate, the public takes a vote and problem solved. Quick and easy.

 

[spectrumc01]

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...

Are you trying to tell me that comercial ads would dictate your vote? Are you that easily led? I'm not, nor are most of the people on this board.

 

[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?

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?

It may not change the people we elect, but it will definately change the way business is done in DC.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

You're half right. The problem isn't our form of government. Aside from the 17th amendment, and the fact that the fact that our leaders ignore the Constitrtion, the form of government is excellent.

But it's not the people we elect to represent us that are the problem. They are only a symptom of the problem. We, the people, are the problem. We've allowed ourselves to be corrupted and thus those we represent are corrupted as well.

We need to start fixing ourselves. And when we do that, our representatives will reflect that change. We need to start becoming men and women of virtue. We need to be honest, industrious, thrifty, fearless, humble, charitable, etc.

We are in a culture war, but unlike what some think, this is not something that will be changed by long battles in the public square over laws. This culture war will be fought in our hearts and minds. Unfortunately, too many are still asleep.

 

[dblack]

How is the minority silenced if everyone gets a chance to voice their opinion?

It's not that democracy silences the minority, it's that it thwarts their will. This is why we should only reach for democracy as a way of solving our problems when the alternative is unacceptable - when allowing people do decide for themselves how to solve their problems is truly intolerable.

 

[spectrumc01]

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.

No one, especially me, is in favor of removing any checks or balances. We are only giving the public a change to voice our opinion with a vote. Way more than a giving the people a voice would be needed to turn this into despotic rule.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

How is the minority silenced if everyone gets a chance to voice their opinion?
We still have a bill of rights and a judicial system.
All we are doing is giving everyone a right to voice their opinion on every issue if they feel like participating. Under direct democracy we would have a right to tell our elected officials that we want to cut government spending. How nice would it have been to tell the super committee we don't care what you think we want the cuts and we want them now. Rather than letting twelve people who can't make a decision, decide our fate, the public takes a vote and problem solved. Quick and easy.

The minority is silenced because a Democracy is majority rule. Thus a minorities voice will never matter.

In a Republic, that is different. There is a check on the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

No one, especially me, is in favor of removing any checks or balances. We are only giving the public a change to voice our opinion with a vote. Way more than a giving the people a voice would be needed to turn this into despotic rule.

And what checks, exactly would exist if we had the people directly making decisions?

 

[spectrumc01]

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.

No one, especially me, is in favor of removing any checks or balances. We are only giving the public a change to voice our opinion with a vote. Way more than a giving the people a voice would be needed to turn this into despotic rule.

And what checks, exactly would exist if we had the people directly making decisions?

Your assuming that the bill of rights no longer exists. You are assuming that we no longer have a judicial system. You are assuming that the people and not our elected officials are introducing legislation. I am not assuming any of that.

I am stating that when a politician introduces a bit of legislation we the people vote on it directly. How is this so wrong?

 

[dblack]

And what checks, exactly would exist if we had the people directly making decisions?

Presumably all the same checks that exist now. We'd simply be replacing Congress with direct polling of the people (or some similar scheme I assume). They'd still be bound by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and held to that by the Court. The laws they vote on could still be vetoed by the president, etc, etc...

My issue with direct democracy is the ability of random voters to make informed judgments. I think there would be an upside down dynamic where the people most likely to have the education, intelligence and will to make informed decisions will have the least time to invest in making those decisions - those with less responsibility and knowledge would have more. To be clear, I'm an elitist (the best and brightest should run things) at least to some degree, because the alternative seems nonsensical to me (the best and brightest should not run things).

Nation Finally Breaks Down And Begs Its Smart People To Just Fix Everything | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[spectrumc01]

And what checks, exactly would exist if we had the people directly making decisions?

Presumably all the same checks that exist now. We'd simply be replacing Congress with direct polling of the people (or some similar scheme I assume). They'd still be bound by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and held to that by the Court. The laws they vote on could still be vetoed by the president, etc, etc...

My issue with direct democracy is the ability of random voters to make informed judgments. I think there would be an upside down dynamic where the people most likely to have the education, intelligence and will to make informed decisions will have the least time to invest in making those decisions - those with less responsibility and knowledge would have more. To be clear, I'm an elitist (the best and brightest should run things) at least to some degree, because the alternative seems nonsensical to me (the best and brightest should not run things).

Nation Finally Breaks Down And Begs Its Smart People To Just Fix Everything | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I believe that most legislation would go on pretty much the same way it would go now, with a few exceptions. Imagine if the bailouts were put to a vote of the people instead of congress. Government pay and benefits would look so much different with the people voting on them instead of those who benefit from them. Currently I have not heard of any lawmaker suggesting that their pay be frozen or decreased. I was always told that the boss decides how much you get paid. Congress needs to remember who the boss is.

 

[Blakcat51]

That is the whole problem.
We no longer have a representative Republic, that is of the people, by the people, for the people.
We have a Government that is completely ignoring the Constitution and has become a Government, of the Government, by the Government and for the Government.

This is exactly my point. The bills and such that are passed in the House and Senate, then joint session seem to consistently have underlying riders that benefit only our elected officials, rather than society at large. (The People).

My concern is whether we're going to sit around and complain, or take pen in hand and replace those in office with people who have a genuine interest for the rest of our citizens, and will vote accordingly.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

You're half right. The problem isn't our form of government. Aside from the 17th amendment, and the fact that the fact that our leaders ignore the Constitrtion, the form of government is excellent.

But it's not the people we elect to represent us that are the problem. They are only a symptom of the problem. We, the people, are the problem. We've allowed ourselves to be corrupted and thus those we represent are corrupted as well.

We need to start fixing ourselves. And when we do that, our representatives will reflect that change. We need to start becoming men and women of virtue. We need to be honest, industrious, thrifty, fearless, humble, charitable, etc.

We are in a culture war, but unlike what some think, this is not something that will be changed by long battles in the public square over laws. This culture war will be fought in our hearts and minds. Unfortunately, too many are still asleep.

I tend to agree with you

The voters get the representatives they deserve. The American voter is lazy and selfish. They want low taxes, they want entitlements......our elected officials give them what they want

Keep cutting taxes and adding new programs to help your constituency and you keep getting elected. Pass legislation that your benefactors want you to pass and the money keeps rolling in and you keep getting elected

 

[spectrumc01]

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?

You're half right. The problem isn't our form of government. Aside from the 17th amendment, and the fact that the fact that our leaders ignore the Constitrtion, the form of government is excellent.

But it's not the people we elect to represent us that are the problem. They are only a symptom of the problem. We, the people, are the problem. We've allowed ourselves to be corrupted and thus those we represent are corrupted as well.

We need to start fixing ourselves. And when we do that, our representatives will reflect that change. We need to start becoming men and women of virtue. We need to be honest, industrious, thrifty, fearless, humble, charitable, etc.

We are in a culture war, but unlike what some think, this is not something that will be changed by long battles in the public square over laws. This culture war will be fought in our hearts and minds. Unfortunately, too many are still asleep.

I tend to agree with you

The voters get the representatives they deserve. The American voter is lazy and selfish. They want low taxes, they want entitlements......our elected officials give them what they want

Keep cutting taxes and adding new programs to help your constituency and you keep getting elected. Pass legislation that your benefactors want you to pass and the money keeps rolling in and you keep getting elected

That is the problem. Now imagine if you had a vote to change all of that. When your politician wants to pass legislation to repay his benefactor but can't because his constituency has a direct vote that says "NO". How would that change our political landscape? When he wants to pass Pork legislation and his constituency says "NO" he will soon find out who actually has the power.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am stating that when a politician introduces a bit of legislation we the people vote on it directly. How is this so wrong?

It would be a logistic nightmare resulting in chaos.

How often will these votes be held? Will all proposed measures be subject to a plebiscite or only a few? And if the latter what criteria would be used to determine its ‘worthiness’? Of course none of this could come about without a Constitutional amendment, rarely a good idea, not to mention potential conflict with existing Constitutional case law.

That referenda and plebiscites might be subject to judicial review or not isn’t the issue, it’s the mechanics of the proposal.

Otherwise that’s what opinion polls are for.

Imagine if the bailouts were put to a vote of the people instead of congress.

Bad idea.

Such a vote would be based on subjective partisan opinion, not facts. However unpopular, the initial TARP legislation in late 2008 was necessary to avoid a complete economic collapse.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

How is the minority silenced if everyone gets a chance to voice their opinion?
We still have a bill of rights and a judicial system.
All we are doing is giving everyone a right to voice their opinion on every issue if they feel like participating. Under direct democracy we would have a right to tell our elected officials that we want to cut government spending. How nice would it have been to tell the super committee we don't care what you think we want the cuts and we want them now. Rather than letting twelve people who can't make a decision, decide our fate, the public takes a vote and problem solved. Quick and easy.

The minority is silenced because a Democracy is majority rule. Thus a minorities voice will never matter.

In a Republic, that is different. There is a check on the tyranny of the majority.

Exactly.

 

[spectrumc01]

I am stating that when a politician introduces a bit of legislation we the people vote on it directly. How is this so wrong?

It would be a logistic nightmare resulting in chaos.

How often will these votes be held? Will all proposed measures be subject to a plebiscite or only a few? And if the latter what criteria would be used to determine its ‘worthiness’? Of course none of this could come about without a Constitutional amendment, rarely a good idea, not to mention potential conflict with existing Constitutional case law.

That referenda and plebiscites might be subject to judicial review or not isn’t the issue, it’s the mechanics of the proposal.

Otherwise that’s what opinion polls are for.

Imagine if the bailouts were put to a vote of the people instead of congress.

Bad idea.

Such a vote would be based on subjective partisan opinion, not facts. However unpopular, the initial TARP legislation in late 2008 was necessary to avoid a complete economic collapse.

not a logistical nightmare if we utilize todays technology. Setting a schedual to take votes isn't that hard either. All of your questions would be answered in the conveining of a constitutional congress. When is doing the will of the people ever a bad thing? Why not let the people decide instead of politicians telling you what to believe and how to think. You are still capable of independant thought, aren't you?

 

[dblack]

When is doing the will of the people ever a bad thing?

Seriously??

 

[spectrumc01]

How is the minority silenced if everyone gets a chance to voice their opinion?
We still have a bill of rights and a judicial system.
All we are doing is giving everyone a right to voice their opinion on every issue if they feel like participating. Under direct democracy we would have a right to tell our elected officials that we want to cut government spending. How nice would it have been to tell the super committee we don't care what you think we want the cuts and we want them now. Rather than letting twelve people who can't make a decision, decide our fate, the public takes a vote and problem solved. Quick and easy.

The minority is silenced because a Democracy is majority rule. Thus a minorities voice will never matter.

In a Republic, that is different. There is a check on the tyranny of the majority.

Exactly.

We are a Representative Democracy not a Republic.
Never seen so many people williing to give up their independance and let someone else do their thinking and acting for them. Do you really feel that your representatives truly know better than you? Do you think they are that much smarter than you? Do you really think they have your best intrests at heart?

Wanna buy a bridge?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When is doing the will of the people ever a bad thing?

Seriously??

When 51% of the people deem it is ok to enslave people with green eyes and brown hair.