By putting forth some tax dollars into television stations, city discussion halls and, of course, the internet, i believe we could make a very pheasable system of direct democracy. Is there any other answer to the ever growing levels of corruption which transform this country from the republic it once was into oligarchy?
2007-07-22 12:33:45 · 14 answers · asked by haas 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The country's just purring along like a kitten. I like it just like it is. With a few minor exceptions of course.
2007-07-22 16:35:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it leads to mobocracy, which would be even more of a mess.
If more people would realize that this country was actually founded as a republic (arguably the ideal form of government for a large populous) and that they are self-governing "sovereigns without subjects" as the court has stated, maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess. As it is, the majority seem to be a 'government owes me and/or should make all my decisions for me' whiners that have no sense of self responsibility and no idea how the government was originally setup to be. The usa was the greatest and most prosperous nation in the world for quite a while until the people became complacent/apathetic and it started its slide into oligarchy.
It's possible to return to a prosperous republic as the founders created, but it would take a lot more people seeing through the propaganda/bs, actually understanding things like the State/Federal Constitutions and realizing that the system used to work quite well.
Although given the current state of affairs, I think that some method of requiring legislators to inform their constitutients regarding pending legislation which would affect them in order to allow comments, etc. wouldn't be out of order. But that kinda goes back to people being apathetic/complacent.
2007-07-22 12:58:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A direct democracy was explicitly excluded by the founding fathers... and for good reason... A democracy was once described as 2 lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.... with a direct democracy is likely that slavery would have lasted a lot longer and that women may not yet have the right to vote... in short Direct Democracy sucks..
2007-07-22 12:46:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would never work, too many people spread out over too much land. Direct democracy wouldn't even work in one of our major cities. Direct democracy worked in Athens because it was just a City-State, small by today's standards, and even in that democracy, not everyone was allowed to vote.
2007-07-22 15:36:04 · answer #4 · answered by Mike W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
direct democracy would lead to better government and certainly more representative government. However the powers that be would oppose this. They prefer a government where the few control the many as we have now.
2007-07-22 12:38:13 · answer #5 · answered by me 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because it would be a logistic impossibility to have a nation of 300 million people debate and vote on everything. There's also something to be said for having people in charge who actually know what they're talking about.
2007-07-22 12:37:34 · answer #6 · answered by Patrick 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
this country is just too big to handle.
europe is made up of several small countries - that is why they are so much more advanced then we are.
with that said - the majority always rules - even if by default.
2007-07-22 13:30:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you sure you would really want that? Putting slavery, past civil rights laws, womans' suffrage, death penalty, gay rights laws, immigration laws, patriot act up for a general plebiscite?
Believe it or not, you might find the masses are not as tolerant as you are.
2007-07-22 12:45:21 · answer #8 · answered by nileslad 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
For one we're not a democracy, we're a republic. People seem to forget that.
2007-07-22 12:36:31 · answer #9 · answered by djm749 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because it would require a Constitutional re-write.
And since Congress would oppose any attempt to dissolve them, it would be even more of an uphill battle than any other amendment.
2007-07-22 12:39:16 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋