In the modern world, do you think a pure democracy could work?

Question

Most 'democracies' are actually republics--people vote for people who decide the fate of their nation. In a nation with television, telephones, and lots of internet connections, It seems possible (with some efforts to ensure people without phones can still vote, etc.) to have a legislature that writes laws for the entire voting population to vote on every week (or as needed).

Would more people pay attention to politics if they knew they could make a difference? Would regular people vote as wisely as legislators? Would this give the press too much power?

(I know that it would be difficult bordering on impossible to change the foundation of a real government of a technologically advanced nation. I'm wondering hypothetically how well everyone thinks it would work if it did happen.)

So, good idea or bad idea?

Answer 1

It is an absolutely great idea! However, then you have to look at who controls the media- largely wealthy corporate interests and who controls the voting networks (a problem we have already with electronic voting anyway).

And, of course, those working the least would likely participate more and those working multiple jobs to survive might not have time to participate. So, voting would be swayed toward retirees, the unemployed and the wealthier classes. Hard-working poor and middle classes may be less represented. I think this is already the case for regular voting.

Nonetheless, interest would increase, I believe, unless people figure out that once again their votes are being manipulated. I worked one bus stop for the 2000 presidential election and many didn't want to vote because they felt the choice was pre-determined and unfortunately it seems they were right!

For it to work media would have to be public, non-profits with monitoring and oversight from different groups.

All voting networks would have to have oversight from various groups. And, still unless some sort of paper trail is created (perhaps voters keeping records of their vote) the risk for manipulation is great.

One other little examined aspect of this is techniques used by the media and politicians to entrance people. Some have called this hypnosis - others trance. People will also have to be educated about this aspect as the non-profit Trance Rearch Foundation is attempting to do already. See http://www.trance.edu/

Once all of the above are accounted for along with improvements in education and issues of propaganda in education addressed it should be an infinitely superior system. And, while these are a lot of things to address they need to be addressed anyway.

Whoops and I forgot religious groups and TV evangelists who use hypnotic trance to promote their political agenda.

Answer 2

I think if people felt like they made more of a difference they would get more involved in politics. Right now alot of people really don't have faith in the system, i.e. faulty voting techniques, fraudulent tallying, etc. When it comes to politicians themselves, it's a rare occasion when a candidate comes to office that the public really sees as an honest politician that is working in the best interest of the public. It would be interesting to see if your idea would actually work.
I think it's a feasible idea, though politicians would definitely try to shoot it down! My only concern would be the fact that people would lose interest after a while, or that there needs to be safeguards to ensure that mature adults are using the voting power. (I mean look at the kids answers here on Yahoo and you'll understand what I'm talking about.)
I think it could definitely work, as more and more people are showing a definite effect on the election process. Look at Dean, the candidate from Vermont. His influence came most from the power of the internet. Will it happen? I don't know. I would love to see something like this put in place if only to stop stuff from being tacked onto legislation nowadays. It would put a definite spin on things if politicians and lobbyists knew that people would not only be able to see the crap they are feeding the general public, but would have actual veto power on it.

Post note: in response to some other answers, it would help to put a time limit on the legislation vote.

Answer 3

In the foreseeable future, I sincerely doubt if we will ever be able to have a pure democracy. Any system devised by man will be imperfect just as man, himself, is imperfect. The system as you outline could still be subject to abuses. IE...Interest groups could form to push through a particular piece of legislation. How do you educate the masses to make an informed decision? Would the rights of the weak or the minority be protected? How do the homeless vote...or are we denying them this right which means we do not have a pure democracy.

Nietzsche noted that bad things happen in this world not because there is a great deal of evil around us but due to the fact that good people stand by and do nothing. It will take a major shift in our mind sets in order to get people to fully participate on a regular basis....on an informed basis....in any political system.

Answer 4

You're right! Why the heck do we call ourselves a democracy? maybe with technology now it would be possible to all vote etc. and probably would be a lot better than the "wise legislators" voting now. Geez. Government will never change - screw the middle class and &*it on the poor.

Answer 5

The founding fathers decided on a Republic because a pure democracy is anarchy. After the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government they had given us - his reply was "A Republic madam, if you can keep it."

Answer 6

I think it is high time to convert to a true democracy.

With the internet and software wizards, we could explain and explore even complex issues easily and work through situations so that everyone's opinions could be input, sifted, filtered, grouped and then turned into effective policy.

I like that much better than groups of corrupt lobbyists and arms merchants running everything.

Answer 7

I lived in Mexico for a large part of my life, so I actually understand a few of the mechanisms behind the wealth of America.

For example, America thrived, in large part, because of slavery.
Second of all, America continues to thrive because most every industry imports products from other nations.

In Mexico, you see, there is no Middle Class. You are either poor or rich. And you can't close the gap quite as easily as in America.

America has a large middle class because, in theory, it exported it's lower class, in a sense.

We are affluent because we rely on the resources that other people produce from other countries at a fraction of what it would costs us to produce them here.

Many of the large factories in Mexico are owned by Americans.

Gordon Gekko once said:
"You're not naive enough to believe we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's a free market. And you're part of it."

Answer 8

Bad idea, too many people, and it takes too much time out of the average person's day. Plus, who would even decide the issues to be voted on?

Answer 9

I think pure democracy and pure communism could only exist in a perfect world in a dream

Answer 10

A "pure" democracy has NEVER worked. You can't get that many people to agree on anything. Nothing would get done.