It's all good
It's all BS
I don't know
There are superior systems than democracy
A pure democracy is doomed the instant people realize they can vote themselves money. Our current system guarantees states have a say in the decisions of the Federal government. In a democracy low population states would be steamrolled by states with huge urban populations which happens now to some extent but a democracy would greatly exacerbate the problem
Consider that they may feel the same about you..
The problem is, our people are poorly educated, and then fed a line of propaganda by both the left and right wings..
Thus, they are "turned off".
A much nicer way of saying that our people are ingnorant.....they simply care a little or not at all..
Our system of representative democracy is OK and would be much better if the parties would respect the people and the people were to participate more....JMO.
Lol, I find this comment on YouTube (see my previous post in this thread) quite amusing:
We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
Democracy is mob rule. (Like gang-rape)
Our founding fathers loathed it.
Do your homework on this and then tell me why "they" call us a democracy.
The word "democracy" is not contained in any of our founding documents.
We are NOT a democracy, nor a "true democracy".
As most of us probably know, "Republic" (in the Founder's day) really just meant "a government other than monarchy", and implies that power is spread around a bit rather than overly concentrated.
Representative Democracy is simply one form of Republic, and we are indeed a Representative Democracy in most regards.
Lots of people get hung up on the idea of Democracy and use "Democracy" as if it were interchangeable with "limited government that respects individual liberty".... but the two are NOT synonymous. A Democracy, Representative or Direct, can be just as tyrannical as any Autarchy.
The critical difference in the founding of America was not so much that we did not have a king, or that we used Representative Democracy for most positions of power, but that we instituted a LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
That is, a government whose powers were supposed to be limited to a short list and no more, and further constrained and fenced in by the Bill of Rights to specifically define where Gov is definitely never supposed to stick its nose.
The Bicameral legislature, seperate Presidency, and seperate Judiciary, as well as the counterbalance of the several States and their individual and collective power, were supposed to be somewhat adversarial, to place checks and balances on governing power.
Now, in the two centuries intervening, the power of the central government has grown massively while State power has waned, and our system of checks and balances has been watered down a lot. Even so, we still have a government that finds its power a lot more limited than the governments of many of our "fellow democracies" around the world... many of whom lack a document like our Constitution or BoR that fences gov't in so carefully.
Still, the Constitution and BoR are just paper.... they only have power if The People insist government keep to it. We've been falling down on the job on that one, IMO, but even so things are not so bad as some make it out to be.
The thing we need to bear in mind is that the foremost key to good governance is not democracy per se, but LIMITED government... not government whose power is theoretically without limit, without check or balance. Even Autarchy (one person rule) could be a reasonably free country if the Autarch's powers were LIMITED and if there was some organization capable of stopping him from overstepping his authority.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
It's a matter of different value systems. Personally, I continue to expand my list of areas over which I don't believe government ought to exert control. I find it hard to justify government exerting power where I think regular people can do a better job, and the list of things that government screws up continues to grow in my book.
In my ideal world, government would be limited to the bare minimum possible.
It's defining precisely what that bare minimum is that's the issue.
And then there’s the question of how you deal with people who have come to depend on one government system or another if/when you DO eliminate said government system…
Just cut them off?
A whole host of other issues crop up.
But IMO, the one of the main problems we’ve had is that politicians have for decades been reacting to any problem by (relatively) quickly passing a “solution”, so they can tell their constituents “hey look, I’m watching out for you on (insert issue, whether real or manufactured, here).
But those “solutions” cause other issues.
I recall hearing somewhere that way back, Senators were selected/elected by the state governments – not directly by the people as they are now.
This would seem to prevent the “mob rule by proxy” that sometimes seems to exist, at least in the senate…
But I dunno.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller