for the people by the people, what a crock a s#$%. lets vote on decisions about our lives and not let other people or political parties make those decision for us. all they care about is the dollar any way. we could buy the government if we had enough money. that is why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
2006-11-10 02:02:57 · 13 answers · asked by treestub7 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Too great a volume of decisions to be made.
The fact is that most people don't even put in the effort to choose their leaders wisely, so how could they be counted upon to make wise policy decisions, which would require even more effort?
2006-11-10 02:13:20 · answer #1 · answered by x 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is why there is a separation of powers and laws between the Federal and the States. The Federal can impose law on the States, but only after the Representatives of every state agree and vote in a majority, This is called The Democratic Process. The Republic is the many States that together form a Nation. We are under or have accepted a Democratic Republic as the law of the land. In this system, elected Representatives cast votes, these votes are to be cast with the approval of the majority of voters in that Representatives district. If 6 people write to or contact a Representative and tell them Vote NO, then 12 citizens contact the representative and tell them Vote YES, the Representative is required, by law, to vote with the Majority of the Citizens that they serve.
Can a vote be purchased, certainly.
Can a vote be swayed by a lobbyist, certainly.
Is this the same Free and Democratic Republic that was envisioned in the Original Constitution, no it is not.
Is it better to live in an almost free America than someplace else. I do not know, I cannot leave this Country.
Would I want to leave this country if I was able to, I have no idea, but more than likely no.
Am I poor, I am below the poverty level, but I have indoor plumbing and an internet connection.
Allways look on the bright side of life.
2006-11-10 10:26:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Then we'd live in a democracy. At the moment, we live in a representative republic, where the people elect politicians to represent their views.
There are no actual democracies in the world today. The Greeks and Romans had a form of democracy, but voting then was limited to the rich; slaves did not get to vote - so even there it wasn't a true democracy.
A democracy is unworkable for two reasons - you cannot organize the voting effectively for every issue, and the people cannot spend sufficient time to study each issue so that they can make informed decisions - if they did, they wouldn't have time for work.
A representative democracy, such as our republic, is the best available compromise. Not perfect, but it does generally represent the views of the people.
2006-11-10 12:14:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately political concepts don't evolve like a society and it's communication technology (especially on a world level). Our and most other political systems are archaic, and favor an equaly as archaic status quoism. With todays communication capabilities we could easily make do with one fourth the government control and one tenth the "legislative representatives". A true republic Of the people By the people, For the people is now possible, but you won't see that on the evening news....
The concept of voting on decisions is long overdue, and strikes fear in government participants, bureaucrats, and their media toadies.
2006-11-10 10:27:06 · answer #4 · answered by Gunny T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Frankly it is a matter of time. There is far too much involved in running a government, much less three, to do it part time. We would have to run our local governments, state governments and our national government.
Aside from the time issue, how could you have a meaningful debate with 100,000,000 people involved?
The comment about secrecy and national security is a good point as well.
2006-11-10 10:13:44 · answer #5 · answered by math_prof 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This election was based on a decision. The voters spoke out clearly about their displeasure with how the war in Iraq is being waged. There were other issues, too, such as corruption, but the big one was Iraq.
2006-11-10 10:19:28 · answer #6 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is a decently good idea, but it would be hard to organize, expensive (means higher taxes) and have a high risk of scandal. It is an idea that needs to be further brainstormed. I am only answering the original question. You cannot buy the government.
2006-11-10 10:59:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's called Representative Democracy. I don't have time to deal with every little nit-picky detail about how the government works, so I pick somebody to do it for me. Just like how we don't all try to put out our own fires or catch our own criminals. It's just that most other types of professional public servants are required to be at least a little bit competent at what they do.
2006-11-10 10:12:06 · answer #8 · answered by abram.kelly 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I like your style! I think this would be the best. Especially on major issues like war, health care, and taxes. But we would be going to the polls everyday. There would be little time for work.
2006-11-10 10:20:55 · answer #9 · answered by Busy Lady 2010 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually there are elections on decisions too. For example, switzerland had one to decide whether to join UN or not.
2006-11-10 10:11:23 · answer #10 · answered by chingmenghang 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋