• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Direct democracy in the USA?

Would direct democracy be suitable for the U.S.A.?

  • Yes, in some states

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dunno

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    25
I'll ask my representative to vote no.
 
No.

There's way too many people with too little time.
 
No.

There's way too many people with too little time.

With the use of technology? Vote on laws via text messaging. I'd be okay with it for local stuff just to test out the concept.

BTW: I think Congress should be able to meet and vote via the aid of technology in emergencies. I can't see why Congressmen cannot be linked to the Capital using something at home that incorporates something like C-Span and Skype over a secure satellite or Internet connection when they're not officially in session and something serious come up.
 
No. Representative government is proving to be too much of a challenge for a population that insists on voting without grasping the issues. Direct democracy would crash and burn almost at once.
 

You cannot have direct democracy in any country today. In order for direct democracy to work you need a highly educated, highly connected, highly informed population. And since most people are idiots... it's doomed to fail from the get go.

Say an idiot makes a law that says: everyone should get 50k $. A lot of idiots would vote for yes, thinking, sure, i could use the money.
And the intelligent people who would think it through will vote no... but the overwhelming majority of stupid will vote yes.
 
The more politicians rely on favorability and opinion polls, the more I think we may already have a direct democracy of sorts.
 
You cannot have direct democracy in any country today. In order for direct democracy to work you need a highly educated, highly connected, highly informed population. And since most people are idiots... it's doomed to fail from the get go.

Say an idiot makes a law that says: everyone should get 50k $. A lot of idiots would vote for yes, thinking, sure, i could use the money.
And the intelligent people who would think it through will vote no... but the overwhelming majority of stupid will vote yes.

You think the people who are in charge are any better . Any adroit person can vote for the people in charge who vote on issues like money . If your logic with the 50k in everyone's pocket is valid why isn't the people we put in charge not suggesting or voting for it since every idiot is voting for them and they need their vote to stay in power .
 
I would say no, because Democracy is not a good idea in practice, especially in a country so heterogeneous and large, population wise, as the U.S.
 
I would say yes, but not in all aspects of the government.

In some areas for example, instead of new governmental agencies (lets pick on the EPA for example), new policies as they apply to the environment would possibily benefit from a direct democracy role where the people can directly affect the policy and outcome. In other areas I would say No, for example the BATF or National Security - where government has a role and needs to act without the benefit of the popular vote in cases where security of individuals or the country are threatened.
 
As a retired HW design engineer, married to an SW engineer, and the son of artists I have seen and found that you try, in the lab, many things before you find what works well.
What I found, especially as design engineer, is that the majority typically doesn't know what will work best; they just think the proper thing to do is obvious. Obvious solutions are seldom the best one, all things considered. With direct democracy the group will more often support the obvious answer not one of the better answers. The majority can take a look at a proposal by those they trust and those that have done their 'lab' work and can give a clear result and process that will work to get to the desired result.

I could have worked on this post some more, but I don't have time. So it's not the best explanation.
 
Last edited:
No. Representative government is proving to be too much of a challenge for a population that insists on voting without grasping the issues. Direct democracy would crash and burn almost at once.

I thought that an inhabitant of a small village would think otherwise. :)

The more politicians rely on favorability and opinion polls, the more I think we may already have a direct democracy of sorts.

However polls cannot substitute elections since they can be manipulated.

I could have worked on this post some more, but I don't have time. So it's not the best explanation.

That was a fine answer, thank you. :) I think I got your point.
 
However polls cannot substitute elections since they can be manipulated.

Don't kid yourself because voting can be manipulated, too.
 
democracy is the most vile form of government-- james madison

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Louis D. Brandeis
 
"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Louis D. Brandeis

no you cant have democracy, because its fails, because it concentrates all direct power into the hands of the people, and ...that is a bad thing.

why do you think the founders did not choose democracy for America?......becuase it will not last.

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.
 
Last edited:
no you cant have democracy, because its fails, because it concentrates all direct power into the hands of the people, and ...that is a bad thing.

why do you think the founders did not choose democracy for America?......becuase it will not last.

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.

we are a democratic republic if i am not mistaken.

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
 
Marxism holds that "democracy is the road to socialism," as Karl Marx believed (although no one can find this line in his complete works), democracy being Greek for "rules of the masses."

Democracy is indispensable to socialism--Vladimir Lenin
 
we are a democratic republic if i am not mistaken.

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country."
Franklin D. Roosevelt


WRONG?...you have been lead to believe something which is not true!


article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution--The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


what is republican government?............. it is mixed constitution


The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional] convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

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, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.
 
WRONG?...you have been lead to believe something which is not true!


article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution--The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


what is republican government?............. it is mixed constitution


The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional] convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

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, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom