Democracy?

[Arrian]

Please note, John, that if you want a full democracy (as opposed to the current republic), you had better be prepared to spend several hours each day voting. Part of the reason we elect people to do it for us is we don't have the time (or wish to find the time) to investigate every issue and vote on it.

I think, however, that a compromise position could be reached whereby certain issues were decided by referrendum... but then the question is how to decide which issues.

-Arrian

[johncmcleod]

Please note, John, that if you want a full democracy (as opposed to the current republic), you had better be prepared to spend several hours each day voting.

Well maybe not necessarily that much time, and also don't forget that you don't have to vote on everything. I don't have a position on every issue.

I don't see a problem witht his though. It would be the intensity of politics that Athens had in ancient Greece. It would really force people to question the world, think about things, and try to elect better leaders.

I disagree with skywalker. When you elect a leader, you still are voting for somethings that you disagree with. And also, a leader will still do some things that the public doesn't want if they are popular enough to get away with it.

A huge example of reasons to give the public more control was Vietnam. The nation didn't want it, but in our 'democracy' that didn't seem to matter and by the time our 'democracy' enabled tthe public to get what it wanted, 3 and a half million Vietnamese were dead.

Also, allowing the public to vote on declarations of war would eliminate those small scale wars that don't kick a politician out but the public might not want. Examples are everything we have done in Latin America, all of the tyrannical regimes we set up to make us richer.

As for the test, I don't think they could be slanted to hurt minorities. If the questions only had to do with the candidate and the answers were contained in a pamphlet or whatever, I don't see how it could happen.

And remember, our government is supposed to be 'of the people, by the people, for the people.' My system would be a whole lot more reflective of that statement then the current one. The whole idea of democracy is the people being allowed to make decisions, not just the leaders, and that exactly is what my system is.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

"secure internet" = oxymoron

wrong. it's not.

it's called a standalone workstation.

standalone workstation != internet though

[Sava]

I believe the US needs to move more towards true Democracy than this system we have now.

1. Abolish the electoral college
Sorry, but a true popular election should decide the presidency.

2. Term limits for Congress
Senile puppets like Strom Thurmond illustrate why there should be term limits for Congress. This would also allow for a greater turnover of representatives. IIRC, incumbents have like a 90% re-election rate. It's so silly.

3. Direct election of federal judges and term limits
Lifetime appointments are a mistake. I think the people should elect judges or vote on them in elections based upon executive appointments. I'd like to see the executive branch still make appointments, but then Congress, then a direct election by the public should be needed to approve judicial appointments.

4. Parliamentary election of House members
No more gerrymandering like in Texas. No more "super majority" districts where minorities get screwed.

[Kuciwalker]

3. Direct election of federal judges and term limits
Lifetime appointments are a mistake. I think the people should elect judges or vote on them in elections based upon executive appointments. I'd like to see the executive branch still make appointments, but then Congress, then a direct election by the public should be needed to approve judicial appointments.

Wouldn't work. The approval wouldn't happen at a fixed time, so having potentially multiple election at an unknown time EVERY SINGLE TIME you needed to replace a judge would be a nightmare.

[johncmcleod]

3. Direct election of federal judges and term limits

Not a good idea I don't think. Judges are supposed to interpret the constitution the way it was meant to be interpreted. What is not right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right. Now if the people want to change the laws, then that can be done through the legislative system. I just don't like the idea of judges just deciding whatever is popular just so they can be re-elected.

Speaking of term limits, do you think they should have them for president? I mean maybe someday we might get a good president and we'll want to elect him for more then 2 terms.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A huge example of reasons to give the public more control was Vietnam. The nation didn't want it, but in our 'democracy' that didn't seem to matter and by the time our 'democracy' enabled tthe public to get what it wanted, 3 and a half million Vietnamese were dead.

Actually that is wrong. Public support for Vietnam was always above 50% until the early 70s.

2. Term limits for Congress
Senile puppets like Strom Thurmond illustrate why there should be term limits for Congress. This would also allow for a greater turnover of representatives. IIRC, incumbents have like a 90% re-election rate. It's so silly.

Then you have a bunch of people who don't know how government is supposed to work come in every some odd years. What would happen is that the PARTIES would have greater control over members, because they'd be the ones telling them what to do... the members themselves would be lost.

3. Direct election of federal judges and term limits
Lifetime appointments are a mistake. I think the people should elect judges or vote on them in elections based upon executive appointments. I'd like to see the executive branch still make appointments, but then Congress, then a direct election by the public should be needed to approve judicial appointments.

Judges are elected in states and they are the most crooked judges you will find. They usually vote on the peoples' emotions and not on what the law is (which is what they are there for). Remember it was APPOINTED federal judges that desegregated schools while the state judges let them stay seperated by race because that's what their constituents wanted.