View Poll Results: Would direct democracy be suitable for the U.S.A.?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, all over the U.S.

    5 15.63%
  • Yes, in some states

    1 3.13%
  • No

    26 81.25%
  • Dunno

    0 0%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Direct democracy in the USA?

  1. #21
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Direct democracy in the USA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    barkmann, if the founding fathers hated democracy, they would not have put into the Constitution the ammendment process the led to the creation of the 17th ammendment and the direct election's of senators.

    how can you explain how the original ideas of Madison and Jefferson changed with the coming of progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano roosevelt, and Robert La Follette.

    the founders did not choose democracy becuase they read books of why governments fail, and democracy fails.

    democracy concentrates 100% direct power into the hands of the people, and this leads to majority rule.....thats what democracy is majority rule, and the founders hated that because the rights of the minority are not protected.

    the founders sought to spread power out ,not concentrate it, that is why republican government.. the people are given 50% of direct power, and the state legislatures are given 50% of direct power, and the people are given 100 % indirect power thru the vote...for the house and their state officials.

    madison is saying in federalist 47, if you give anyone, or group or all of the people all direct power they will misuse it and become tyrannical.

    federalist 47--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

    democracy is collectivism, and because the house is by direct election, collectivist legislation can come from that lower side of the house, but because the senate is in the hands of the state legislature, its interest is different than the house, it serves as a block to stop the collectivist bills of the house, and Madison states in federalist 63.

    federalist 63--The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.

    madison states that the senate is the first bulwark against collectivism, and the USSC the second, as Madison states...the states are the guardian of the rights of the people.

    the founders created the government this way, so that BOTH the interest of the states and the people have to come together for any legislation in congress to pass.

    the house is the interest of the people, and the senate is the interest of the states...........both sides have to agreed and their interest met, for any bill to become law.

    in the 1890 progressives came into being and the idea of america as a democracy was promoted and taught, this was a lie!

    the founders state clearly that republican government is the most HIGHEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and the people have to be educated or it will be lost, and turn into majority rule, and destroy itself.
    Last edited by Master PO; 09-26-13 at 08:08 PM.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,909

    Re: Direct democracy in the USA?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    the founders did not choose democracy becuase they read books of why governments fail, and democracy fails.

    democracy concentrates 100% direct power into the hands of the people, and this leads to majority rule.....thats what democracy is majority rule, and the founders hated that because the rights of the minority are not protected.

    the founders sought to spread power out ,not concentrate it, that is why republican government.. the people are given 50% of direct power, and the state legislatures are given 50% of direct power, and the people are given 100 % indirect power thru the vote...for the house and their state officials.

    madison is saying in federalist 47, if you give anyone, or group or all of the people all direct power they will misuse it and become tyrannical.

    federalist 47--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

    democracy is collectivism, and because the house is by direct election, collectivist legislation can come from that lower side of the house, but because the senate is in the hands of the state legislature, its interest is different than the house, it serves as a block to stop the collectivist bills of the house, and Madison states in federalist 63.

    federalist 63--The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.

    madison states that the senate is the first bulwark against collectivism, and the USSC the second, as Madison states...the states are the guardian of the rights of the people.

    thew founders created the government this way, so that BOTH the interest of the state and the people have to come together for any legislation in congress to pass.

    the house is the interest of the people, and thesnrte is the interest of the states...........both side have to agreed and they interest met, for any bill to become law.

    in the 1890 progression came into being and the idea of america as a democracy was promoted and taught, this was a lie!

    the founders state clearly that republican government is the most HIGHEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and the people have to be educated or it will be lost, and turn into majority rule, and destroy itself.
    again i thought we were a democratic republic, incorperating concepts from democratic and republican forms of government.

    and its not like the republic is the perfect system of government: look at the republic England created after the roundheads seized control after winning the english civil war.

  3. #23
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Direct democracy in the USA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    again i thought we were a democratic republic, incorperating concepts from democratic and republican forms of government.

    and its not like the republic is the perfect system of government: look at the republic England created after the roundheads seized control after winning the english civil war.
    i state before it was created as a mixed constitution.

    the house is a democracy..by direct election of the people.

    the senate is a indirect election by the people...the people vote for their legislature and they appoint a senator.....this is divide power, so that no one entity has all of the power to become tyrannical.

    democracy concentrates power into 1...

    republican government divides it into 2...

    when interest is in 1, power can be abused

    when interest is in 2, it cannot be abused, becuase 1 checks the power of the other.

    Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people,[house] some other issues by few [senate], and some other issues by a single person [executive ].............(also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •