Direct democracy

NoC_T said:

Well I wish you would, because thus far all we've had is paranoia and the apparent desire for a minority to call the shots, which is baffling, considering Americans usually extol the virtues of 'freedom'. Would you prefer Totalitarianism?

Click to expand...

No dude. The reasons are because the friggin website would be hacked, political groups would find ways to vote more than once, etc. Get a grip and stop jumping to conclusions.

I favor the opposite approach. Look at what's happened out in CA with the ballot craziness and the nationwide hysteria over gay marriage last decade. The ignorant masses only know how to oppress. Most people are just not qualified to make decisions beyond what day their garbage gets collected. That's how i would handle it actually. Allow the educated elite to vote in representatives and everyone else gets to pick their garbage day only.

JJB3333 said:

Do you think that it would be possible for america or any country in to days world to set up a true Direct democracy

Click to expand...

No, and it'd be a disaster were it ever to happen.

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

democracy in any form, is a vile form of government

JJB3333 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

JJB3333 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.