There is simply not enough time in your day to participate in a true democracy. Everyone would have to vote on every issue. That would mean the following:
You would have to work to support your family
Raise your children, then...
Study every issue, from budget to civil and criminal law, and foreign policy and economics... etc...
Debate the issue then vote for the measure.
But today you can't quite get to the polling place but the liberal folks that are living off the state (don't have a job) will manage to pass a law that forces you to give them 50 percent of your pay so that they can continue to not work so that they can have more time to think up more law.
Sounds fair to you? I don't think so.
2006-10-14 12:08:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ranger473 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because as a collective people are still sheep for the most part.....they can't make decisions for themselves......and they just follow the herd and blindly trust our leaders......assuming that they have good intentions...."well, I trust my elected officials to do whats best for my city, state, and country". a very pure almost to the point of ignorant point of view if I do say so myself........this is a republic that is the drink of choice lately......a direct democracy is the other extreme.....where noting is done w/o a public refferal....the answer lies somewhere in the middle
2006-10-13 13:06:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by macrominded 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
America is a Republic, a political order whose head of state is not a monarch,, but a president,,,
Democracy is the political system of government by the people, exercised through elected officials, majority rule
2006-10-13 12:49:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
In a true democracy, we'd have to vote for every little issue. I would like to see and end to the electoral college though, so we have a direct vote for our president and representatives. Right now we have the golden rule---whoever has the gold, RULES!
2006-10-13 12:45:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by nursesr4evr 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
no one wants to take responsibility for the action of the state at large. its much easier to blame the president , or a congerssman.
2006-10-14 07:57:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by hillbilly named Possum 5
·
0⤊
0⤋