View Poll Results: Do you think it would be possible for america to have a direct democracy

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 21.88%
  • No

    24 75.00%
  • Maybe/ I dont know

    1 3.13%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 32 of 32

Thread: Direct democracy

  1. #31
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: Direct democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by JJB3333 View Post
    OK then since this thread seems to be loosing intrest and most people are voting no, Do you think this could work on more of a small scale, say state or town goverments
    I think it can only work where the people affected by decisions made are directly involved in all aspects of the decision-making process --- and have an equal say in it.

    Where it falls apart is when the number of those affected by the decision making process are indirectly involved, generally because their numbers are too big to enable everyone to be directly involved, which is why representative republics are implemented instead.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  2. #32
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Direct democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by JJB3333 View Post
    OK then since this thread seems to be loosing intrest and most people are voting no, Do you think this could work on more of a small scale, say state or town goverments
    Another problem arises when those acutely for or against an issue show up to vote disproportionately to those who are not as emotionally, morally, personally ect. involved. Lets say there was a hot button issue in the town up for a vote. This could even happen with issues that are not a "hot button" topic. A public park perhaps. Those with children in the vicinity would make it a point to vote, while those not in the immediate area would not be so compelled to take time out of their schedule to vote for an issue that does not relate to them as much. They may be against spending from the budget for this park, but they are not as vested in the outcome as those who would get the park. What should be an "every person gets a vote" situation becomes lopsided.

    On a larger scale this would apply to any hot button issue as well, what you end up having is not a one person one vote scenario, but rather a group of passionate people woth a disproportionate say potentially stampeding those who are not motivated enough to oppose this action.

    Not only is there the tyranny of the majority issue to contend with, but you have potential further issues with tyranny of the motivated minority.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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