Declaration of Independence Excerpt.

[spectrumc01]

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

Seriously??

If nine out of ten people want to turn left, you might not want to go left but it is what nine out of ten people want to do. So now you can either turn left or leave the group. No one forces you to go left, no one puts you in jail or takes your property or money.

It's just like now, with the exception of a comparable handful of people (congress) making the descision, everyone gets a say so. As it stands now when the minority of people (congress) decide they want a pay raise, the majority must pony up, or leave. As it stands the minority (our government) has all but ruined this country. How does giving the power back to the majority (We the People) wrong?

 

[spectrumc01]

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.

Unbelievable?
Have your read anything I posted? or just the things you wanted to?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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?

We are a constitutional republic which democratically elects our representatives.

Judging by your posts I don't think you would comprehend the type of bridge you are selling

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Seriously??

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

Unbelievable?
Have your read anything I posted? or just the things you wanted to?

I've read what you posted but just because you claim that under a direct democracy we will still be protected by the current constitution doesn't mean you are correct. In fact in order to impliment a direct democracy we would have to drastically alter the structure of govt that the constitution sets forth.

 

[dblack]

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

Seriously??

If nine out of ten people want to turn left, you might not want to go left but it is what nine out of ten people want to do. So now you can either turn left or leave the group. No one forces you to go left, no one puts you in jail or takes your property or money.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. The will of the majority can most certainly be a bad thing. It depends on what it is. Unless you're building your entire moral code on the idea of majority rules, you need some guard against such abuse of government power.

How does giving the power back to the majority (We the People) wrong?

I didn't say it was. But democracy advocates tend to have a disturbingly simplistic view of majority rule as a 'good' in its own right, often implying - a you've done - that anything the majority wills is inevitably good. The only real benefit of democracy is that it avoids violence by acquiescing to the largest group by default. But it's no guarantee of virtuous government, and it's no guarantee that individual rights will be respected.

 

[American Horse]

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.

Looking at the way people vote - a direct democracy would be a complete disaster. You think it is bad when people vote for the slime that we have now to hold office, just wait to see what would happen if people actually had to look at the bills that were proposed. No one but the select few would read anything and would likely only vote for a bill if they were getting something out of it.

Then you run into the old problem... what do you do when the 51% vote the other 49% into oblivion?

This idea of instant democracy with the internet is so foolish in elementary ways that it's scary. Legislation for a country as complex as ours requires people who understand it (the process) and all the related law already in affect. We don't have a representative democracy, we have a representative republic.

As a representative republic, we, the citizens are free to go about our daily lives minding our business, and elect people to represent us by devoting their time in the office to understanding the issues they are to vote on to become law. The complexities of the issues do not lend themselves to the decision making ability of virtually every citizen, and the information is not even everywhere in the private sphere.

And it's obvious we can't rely on our media, the so called "Fourth Estate" of our government to keep us even moderately informed, nor can we rely on our fellow citizens to inform themselves even if the information vital to sound decisions of self governing was disseminated and available.

This idea of direct democracy is just nuts, and suggests that some folks don't even understand how our system works and why it was instituted in the form it was. The theoretical arguments of the tyranny of the majority are only a small part of the problems of issues being voted yay or nay.

Consider the power a single charismatic personality could have with such a system, particularly with a willing and enabling media.

 

[spectrumc01]

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.

Maybe this will clear things up. This is my original post.

1st we convene a constitutional congress with the express goal of moving to a direct democracy where everyone gets a vote on the presented legislation.
2nd there is no repeel of the Bill of rights or the constitution.
3rd Technology for the first time allows for such a vote to take place.
4th we are not doing away with any checks or balances, the judicial system is still in place and working.
5th a representative democracy (which is what we have now) is obsolete, because it allows for mass corruption (which is what we have now). The reasons for such a democracy are no longer present.

We are not a republic, we have never been a republic. We are not athoritarian nor communistic, most of thosecountries, if not all, have Republic in their title. i.e the peoples republic of China, the peoples republic of North Korea, the republic of Cuba, etc. etc.

 

[spectrumc01]

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.

Looking at the way people vote - a direct democracy would be a complete disaster. You think it is bad when people vote for the slime that we have now to hold office, just wait to see what would happen if people actually had to look at the bills that were proposed. No one but the select few would read anything and would likely only vote for a bill if they were getting something out of it.

Then you run into the old problem... what do you do when the 51% vote the other 49% into oblivion?

This idea of instant democracy with the internet is so foolish in elementary ways that it's scary. Legislation for a country as complex as ours requires people who understand it (the process) and all the related law already in affect. We don't have a representative democracy, we have a representative republic.

As a representative republic, we, the citizens are free to go about our daily lives minding our business, and elect people to represent us by devoting their time in the office to understanding the issues they are to vote on to become law. The complexities of the issues do not lend themselves to the decision making ability of virtually every citizen, and the information is not even everywhere in the private sphere.

And it's obvious we can't rely on our media, the so called "Fourth Estate" of our government to keep us even moderately informed, nor can we rely on our fellow citizens to inform themselves even if the information vital to sound decisions of self governing was disseminated and available.

This idea of direct democracy is just nuts, and suggests that some folks don't even understand how our system works and why it was instituted in the form it was. The theoretical arguments of the tyranny of the majority are only a small part of the problems of issues being voted yay or nay.

Consider the power a single charismatic personality could have with such a system, particularly with a willing and enabling media.

You must not vote then, being that our representatives know so much more than the common man. Do you think we are smart enough to comprehend such a complex system as the election process? maybe they should just hand pick their successors. I was unaware that the "fourth estate" was the only source of information. But then again maybe we are not smart enough to comprehend that either.

Prove we are a Republic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, the courts are the proper venue for a citizen to seek relief from legislation he considers un-Constitutional.

Every two years he may exercise his right to vote and cast a ballot to remove a given lawmaker whom he believes is not acting in the Nation’s best interest.

State and local elections are also held along with referenda and recall elections if authorized.

Giving voters some sort of ‘ballot veto’ authority is frankly naïve and unrealistic.

Although frustration with regard to the perception that Washington is somehow ‘out of touch’ with average Americans, those same Americans need to understand that the problem lies with the voters who elect the same politicians election after election, not with the politicians alone.

 

[dblack]

Prove we are a Republic.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means:

Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com

re·pub·lic   [ri-puhb-lik]
noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[spectrumc01]

Prove we are a Republic.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means:

Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com

re·pub·lic   [ri-puhb-lik]
noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relation to republicanismThe related term republic may have many different meanings. It normally means a state with an elected or otherwise non-monarchical head of state, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran or Republic of Korea.

Sometimes in the US it is used similarly to liberal (representative) democracy. For example:

"The United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered."[3]

Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stand partially corrected, as stated above.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

Looking at the way people vote - a direct democracy would be a complete disaster. You think it is bad when people vote for the slime that we have now to hold office, just wait to see what would happen if people actually had to look at the bills that were proposed. No one but the select few would read anything and would likely only vote for a bill if they were getting something out of it.

Then you run into the old problem... what do you do when the 51% vote the other 49% into oblivion?

I was going to post almost the exact thing...

I agree 100%.

I think a direct democracy could be a good idea however it's not practical. Putting the welfare of our nation in the hands of total morons that would flunk a constitution test would just be irresponsible. Not that our present government is any better. As a matter of fact I was reading an article a few months back that asserted that the majority of congress flunked a test on government and constitution..

Opinion: Elected Officials Flunk Constitution Quiz

* Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.
* Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war -- 54 percent of the general public knows that.
* Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase "wall of separation" appears in Thomas Jefferson's letters -- not in the U.S. Constitution -- compared with 19 percent of the general public.
* And only 57 percent of those who've held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for "training those aspiring for higher political office.")

That is just pathetic....

How can one be elected to office and not know the three branches of government???

 

[Dragon]

Spectrum01:

I usually have to say this to people who assert "America is a republic not a democracy," but I guess now I have to say it from the other direction.

The concepts of republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A republic is not a direct democracy, but it may be a representative democracy. A republic that is not a democracy is, ipso facto, an aristocracy, because those are the only two types of republic.

Personally, I'm with you in thinking we've reached a point in our development as a society that going from a democratic republic to a direct democracy is something we should start thinking about (see the link in my signature). But that doesn't mean that our republic can't be democratic. It can, and it's supposed to be.

 

[American Horse]

Looking at the way people vote - a direct democracy would be a complete disaster. You think it is bad when people vote for the slime that we have now to hold office, just wait to see what would happen if people actually had to look at the bills that were proposed. No one but the select few would read anything and would likely only vote for a bill if they were getting something out of it.

Then you run into the old problem... what do you do when the 51% vote the other 49% into oblivion?

This idea of instant democracy with the internet is so foolish in elementary ways that it's scary. Legislation for a country as complex as ours requires people who understand it (the process) and all the related law already in affect. We don't have a representative democracy, we have a representative republic.

As a representative republic, we, the citizens are free to go about our daily lives minding our business, and elect people to represent us by devoting their time in the office to understanding the issues they are to vote on to become law. The complexities of the issues do not lend themselves to the decision making ability of virtually every citizen, and the information is not even everywhere in the private sphere.

And it's obvious we can't rely on our media, the so called "Fourth Estate" of our government to keep us even moderately informed, nor can we rely on our fellow citizens to inform themselves even if the information vital to sound decisions of self governing was disseminated and available.

This idea of direct democracy is just nuts, and suggests that some folks don't even understand how our system works and why it was instituted in the form it was. The theoretical arguments of the tyranny of the majority are only a small part of the problems of issues being voted yay or nay.

Consider the power a single charismatic personality could have with such a system, particularly with a willing and enabling media.

You must not vote then, being that our representatives know so much more than the common man. Do you think we are smart enough to comprehend such a complex system as the election process? maybe they should just hand pick their successors. I was unaware that the "fourth estate" was the only source of information. But then again maybe we are not smart enough to comprehend that either.

Prove we are a Republic.

That's not even close to what I said. But it is true that some significant percentage, not because they aren't smart enough, won't involve themselves because they aren't disposed to processing legislation. Heck, look at how large a percentage don't vote. And don't put that down to disalusionment, because since they don't vote, they also can't be voting vote for local township, county, and city offices, or for school board which determines their property taxes, and the quality of the education of their kids.

A very large proportion of the people need to spend their time on their work or family life , and simply will not take the time to read every bill that would be put to them in some electronic public poll.

And the media IS an important agent of information and decision making to the citizens of the country. As for an obvious alternative, you might be surprised at the number of people who never go on the internet and don't own a computer; and so much of the information on the internet is just not authentic and reliable.

And the proof we are a republic is in the definition of the word and the reality of our electoral processes not much changed for two hundred plus years. If you are suggesting that instead, we are actually a plutocracy, or perhaps because of the perceived power of an elected federal reserve that we are all slaves, and that "the Republic is dead" say that.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Spectrum01:

I usually have to say this to people who assert "America is a republic not a democracy," but I guess now I have to say it from the other direction.

The concepts of republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A republic is not a direct democracy, but it may be a representative democracy. A republic that is not a democracy is, ipso facto, an aristocracy, because those are the only two types of republic.

Personally, I'm with you in thinking we've reached a point in our development as a society that going from a democratic republic to a direct democracy is something we should start thinking about (see the link in my signature). But that doesn't mean that our republic can't be democratic. It can, and it's supposed to be.

A direct democracy would be impossible - most people wouldn't even understand most bills, not to mention juggling state, local and federal bills all at the same time would be too difficult for most people.

Honestly I like our system as it is, referendums are fine with me.

 

[Mr.Nick]

This idea of instant democracy with the internet is so foolish in elementary ways that it's scary. Legislation for a country as complex as ours requires people who understand it (the process) and all the related law already in affect. We don't have a representative democracy, we have a representative republic.

As a representative republic, we, the citizens are free to go about our daily lives minding our business, and elect people to represent us by devoting their time in the office to understanding the issues they are to vote on to become law. The complexities of the issues do not lend themselves to the decision making ability of virtually every citizen, and the information is not even everywhere in the private sphere.

And it's obvious we can't rely on our media, the so called "Fourth Estate" of our government to keep us even moderately informed, nor can we rely on our fellow citizens to inform themselves even if the information vital to sound decisions of self governing was disseminated and available.

This idea of direct democracy is just nuts, and suggests that some folks don't even understand how our system works and why it was instituted in the form it was. The theoretical arguments of the tyranny of the majority are only a small part of the problems of issues being voted yay or nay.

Consider the power a single charismatic personality could have with such a system, particularly with a willing and enabling media.

You must not vote then, being that our representatives know so much more than the common man. Do you think we are smart enough to comprehend such a complex system as the election process? maybe they should just hand pick their successors. I was unaware that the "fourth estate" was the only source of information. But then again maybe we are not smart enough to comprehend that either.

Prove we are a Republic.

That's not even close to what I said. But it is true that some significant percentage, not because they aren't smart enough, won't involve themselves because they aren't disposed to processing legislation. Heck, look at how large a percentage don't vote. And don't put that down to disalusionment, because since they don't vote, they also can't be voting vote for local township, county, and city offices, or for school board which determines their property taxes, and the quality of the education of their kids.

A very large proportion of the people need to spend their time on their work or family life , and simply will not take the time to read every bill that would be put to them in some electronic public poll.

And the media IS an important agent of information and decision making to the citizens of the country. As for an obvious alternative, you might be surprised at the number of people who never go on the internet and don't own a computer; and so much of the information on the internet is just not authentic and reliable.

And the proof we are a republic is in the definition of the word and the reality of our electoral processes not much changed for two hundred plus years. If you are suggesting that instead, we are actually a plutocracy, or perhaps because of the perceived power of an elected federal reserve that we are all slaves, and that "the Republic is dead" say that.

The problem is most bills are written as contract. An individual would have to possess a legal background to understand them or have an above average knowledge of language including Latin, which is probably why most lawmakers are lawyers by profession.

I'd speculate that only 20% of the population could make any sense out of most bills.

 

[American Horse]

Spectrum01:

I usually have to say this to people who assert "America is a republic not a democracy," but I guess now I have to say it from the other direction.

The concepts of republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A republic is not a direct democracy, but it may be a representative democracy. A republic that is not a democracy is, ipso facto, an aristocracy, because those are the only two types of republic.

Personally, I'm with you in thinking we've reached a point in our development as a society that going from a democratic republic to a direct democracy is something we should start thinking about (see the link in my signature). But that doesn't mean that our republic can't be democratic. It can, and it's supposed to be.

That is an interesting take but consider that the "founders" deliberately designed a republic in which the executive was not elected by majority vote, and that US senators, represent their states geographically, purposely to distinquish them from the elected representatives, were nominated and elected by state legislatures. The people who placed them in their senate office were not aristocrats, and neither are the electoral college electors.

Since the 17th amendment, the longevity of US senators in office has doubled in the states which were in the union at the founding and nearly all the states that have been the union long enough to take such a measure. That would leave out any state joining the union in the 20th century.

And I have read the link in your sigline, not just now, but a couple weeks back, and in its entirety. Do you read it critically, that is, to consider its flaws?

 

[Intense]

Without the Understanding and Protection, of Unalienable Rights, we are lost and blind, no matter how many join the angry mob.

 

[American Horse]

You must not vote then, being that our representatives know so much more than the common man. Do you think we are smart enough to comprehend such a complex system as the election process? maybe they should just hand pick their successors. I was unaware that the "fourth estate" was the only source of information. But then again maybe we are not smart enough to comprehend that either.

Prove we are a Republic.

That's not even close to what I said. But it is true that some significant percentage, not because they aren't smart enough, won't involve themselves because they aren't disposed to processing legislation. Heck, look at how large a percentage don't vote. And don't put that down to disalusionment, because since they don't vote, they also can't be voting vote for local township, county, and city offices, or for school board which determines their property taxes, and the quality of the education of their kids.

A very large proportion of the people need to spend their time on their work or family life , and simply will not take the time to read every bill that would be put to them in some electronic public poll.

And the media IS an important agent of information and decision making to the citizens of the country. As for an obvious alternative, you might be surprised at the number of people who never go on the internet and don't own a computer; and so much of the information on the internet is just not authentic and reliable.

And the proof we are a republic is in the definition of the word and the reality of our electoral processes not much changed for two hundred plus years. If you are suggesting that instead, we are actually a plutocracy, or perhaps because of the perceived power of an elected federal reserve that we are all slaves, and that "the Republic is dead" say that.

The problem is most bills are written as contract. An individual would have to possess a legal background to understand them or have an above average knowledge of language including Latin, which is probably why most lawmakers are lawyers by profession.

I'd speculate that only 20% of the population could make any sense out of most bills.

And there's a good reason. Laws must be written to be instruments without defects. Obamacare may well be nullified because it is not severable. But consider all the other challenges it will have to endure, and that was written by veteran legislators and their professional staff. That will not change, and laws are by their very nature complex. Its interesting to attempt to think of the range of laws that could drafted for passage into law by a democratic citizen legislature comprised of the whole population.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

What a childlike view of governing. A government swinging back and forth on the whims of the population. Government afraid to do anything that might displease the 51%