Change the voting system. Change the voting system. Change the voting system.
I can't speak for america but as they use the same one as us, It must have the same flaws as it does in the UK. Because of the first past the post system, the person voted in does not necessarily have the majority vote.
Surely a democracy means that the people should get a say in who's making decisions, and if the majority of people aren't actually voting in the person making the decision, then that's a pretty screwed up democracy.
I also think we should have more voting on topics as well as elections (can't think of the name of this type of election! It was used in the UK over devolution).
2007-02-26 04:03:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Shanti76 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Assuming you are talking about the United States, there are a few steps that could be taken.
One, we could eliminate the Electoral College. Of course, that would require one to be utterly ignorant of the purpose of the EC to begin with, but if the goal is pure democracy, that doesn't matter anyway.
Another is that we could simply eliminate the Senate, and have a congress that stands for election every two years. Since the People choose both Senators and Congressmen, one of them is redundant. Senators are a holdover from the days when it was thought that individual states should have some voice in the federal government that they created.
Perhaps the ideal way would be to eliminate Congress altogether, and simply allow the Supreme Court to continue to write new laws. The function of congress to go out among the people to take the pulse of the people could be better done by the major newspapers, blogs, and professional pollsters. Come to think of it, perhaps just leave it up to the NY Times, since their job is to tell people what to think, why not just let them decide what people think without the burden of having to persuade anyone.
However, the problem is with the assumption of the question. The United States was never intended to be a democracy at all. It was intended to be a republic. If you don't know the difference, that's part of the problem.
2007-02-26 04:14:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by open4one 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
the shortcoming to respond to international warming factors out the obsolescence of the nation-state, which grow to be invented to handle the topics of a international long-long previous. the shortcoming to distribute wealth whilst automation and records technological information have made us rich adequate to supply each and every thing society desires with decrease than 50% employment factors out the obsolescence of capitalism and socialism as financial fashions. None of our contemporary social structures have been geared up for the international we are residing in. All are going to alter noticeably interior this 0.5-century. warding off a descent into anarchy or hegemony often is the exciting section.
2016-11-26 00:11:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I just wish people were more honest. I wish those that were capable of working would be honest enough to do so. I wish corporate America would be honest about the ingredients they put in consumer products. I wish lawyers would just relax. I wish people would stop thinking they were victims just because something doesnt go their way.
2007-02-26 03:24:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Devdude 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
the congress because they don't think about the little people
2013-10-20 13:41:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Simple ! I would eliminate the democratic party !
2007-02-26 03:09:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by briang731/ bvincent 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
Your first answer was the best answer.
2007-02-26 03:19:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Kevin A 6
·
0⤊
0⤋