Good question, but a tough answer.
Thomas Jefferson expected "farmer representatives". The gov't would be made up of average citizens and would be a part time position as they would go back and do their actual work most of the time.
What we have are "professional" politicians. Who do it for the ego. Congressional pay isn't that great if you really think about it. So it's only attractive to the already wealthy or people who plan on their career's to be politicians (a la Clinton).
2007-10-17 10:30:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by joe s 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
This is what the House of Representatives is for. It was basically so the common man could have a voice in national politics.
Even with the difficulty in getting into the senate or the white house, you can still vote someone OUT that doesn't deserve to be in there. Of course, you're often choosing between one evil and another.
Get involved in local politics. This is where you can have a REAL voice in what's going on in your community. It's a place to start, at any rate, and most people don't even vote for the people in charge of the school board, judges, state and country representatives and mayors. These people have a say of how your day to day life is affected. There's a 19 year old running for a mayorship in this country! How cool is that? Instead of looking at the forest and how you don't like what's happening to it, it's time to start looking at the trees.
2007-10-17 10:32:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
An oligarchy rests power in a /very/ few, not merely a class (that might be an aristocracy - or, what we're actually arguably comparable to: a plutocracy, rule by the wealthy) so, no, a Federal Constitutional Republic is not an oligarchy - it may well be corrupt and peddle undue influence to the wealthy, corporation, and other special interests capable of raising substantial campaign funds, but it's not an oligarchy.
2007-10-17 10:38:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
What we have is plutocracy--power vested in the wealthy.
Either way, representative democracy can't fix it when the representatives come from the privileged class.
Kelvinistic is correct about Gravel; check out the National Initiative for Democracy.
2007-10-17 10:37:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by sagacity incarnate 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ronald Reagan was born in an apartment above the local bank building in small town Tampico, Illinois.
Bill Clinton's father was a traveling salesmen who died in a car crash before his birth. His stepfather was a gambler and an alcoholic who beat his mother.
Whether you like either of these men or not, they are fine examples of the opportunities the United States provides for ambitious people of humble beginnings.
2007-10-17 10:45:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
You're right. But we shouldn't even have representative democracy, we should have direct democracy, without electoral college (I think...I'm only in high school, so give me a break lol). If we just counted the people's votes and eliminated the (probably corrupt) middle man our votes would count for more.
2007-10-17 10:44:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think you're on to something, but it could change. I believe there is at least one person running without a personal fortune.
Unless this country creates a viable third political party the average person doesn't have a chance to be President.
2007-10-17 10:29:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Zardoz 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Only because we mask it with so called elections. If those that think that two oil men from Texas won the last two elections on merit they are only fooling themselves
2007-10-17 10:28:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by jean 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
exactly! have you heard of Mike Gravel - he wants direct democracy? -that would help get the power back to the people.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gravel2008
2007-10-17 10:30:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by celvin 7
·
2⤊
2⤋