Because we do not have 190 million people ordering pizza. We elect representatives to order our pizza for us.How did it fail to address that?
Why not work to build support for a platform you prefer for public office? But how do you build public support? It requires consensus, does it not? Than you are back to limiting minority opinion. I'm not seeing the perfect roadmap to utopia.Why do you assume that the people who keep getting elected represent the majority view? It's not like presidents are directly elected, and with the two-party system firmly embedded there aren't any options that aren't center right available for people to vote on even if they did vote for president's directly.
I'm not seeing all the countries with parliamentary systems showing they are represented by their government any better than we are.Most parliamentary systems, for starters. They all have greater representation of views than the US does.
Your entire point is that our system works as a representative democracy and that in order to get minority opinion represented in our government it must first be converted from a minority opinion to a majority opinion.
My point is that our system doesn't work as a representative democracy because in order to get minority opinion represented in our government it must first be converted from a minority opinion to a majority opinion.
Now if the argument was that our government works, and therefore it's poor representation of minority opinion is irrelevant, I would have no problem with your position. I'd still disagree, but that'd be about it.
But since you are claiming to support the concept of representative democracy (which is what I support), your arguments become contradictory because our government does a very poor job of representing the views of it's people.
The point I was trying to make was that change in politics requires consensus. Since it is impossible to reach consensus by 300 million people on every issue, compromise is required. With compromise, comes a minority opinion not being acted on. What is your way around that?Out of curiosity, why do you think this is valid response to my question?
Which is...........what?Where did you get the absurd idea that I wanted one person representing everyone? I'm arguing for something entirely opposite from that.
What do you suggest?You keep citing women's rights and civil rights in the context of minority, so it's very confusing. These weren't really minority opinions that weren't represented, they were issues regarding so-called "minorities", but they actually had a large enough following to be majority opinion. In a sense, you could say that they were majority opinions that weren't represented in our laws (which gets into the concept of majority opinion in the ruling class versus majority opinion in the population at large. This is a very important point that shouldn't be glossed over, but it required one to first acknowledge that our government does a poor job representing it's people before it can even be discussed to any great depth).
How?I'm looking for a government that actually has legitimate representation for it's people instead of a load of bull**** disguised as representation. Big difference.
I'm actually more interested in how you get your system adopted without majority support, which by your definition, would exclude minority opposition.If you want, I will gladly produce the framework that I employ in such designations. I could do so very easily because without such a framework I would be utterly incapable of making an intelligent and honest judgment of what is or is not a "successful democracy" in my estimation.
Civil war is your plan?Here's the thing, though. There is already a majority that believes our system is ****ed up. Even the flag waving 'patriots" who think the constitution is the bees knees are aware that they are poorly represented. Just listen ot them bitch about how there's never really a True Conservative© running for office. (BTW, I'm assuming that "True Conservative©" has been copyrighted by Rush Limbaugh)
The problem isn't convincing them of that which they already know, it's convincing them that the line of bull**** that they've been fed about "no system is perfect and therefore anything we do to try to fix this one would make things worse" is bull****. That's the tricky part.
The key is convincing people that the system itself can be improved upon. I mean, it's pretty absurd that many people in this country believe that a system that is almost 225 years old cannot be improved upon in any way.
To do that, we will have to deal with those who are dependent on the status quo staying in place. Unfortunately those are also the people in control.
Because of that it might not be possible to make a real change in the system without violence. This is the real problem, though, because while it doesn't work very well, it really isn't so bad that that it is worth dying in order to change it.