quote:

why don't we live in a democracy? We have the technology

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

why don't we live in a democracy? We have the technology

Technology isn't the issue. The Founding Fathers feared democracy, and deliberately left the people with a voice but from a distance, so it wouldn't rip the country down with popular but foolish decisions.

Need a contemporary example? California. Because of the proposition structure, voters are able to refuse to increase revenue collection, and yet refuse to cut popular services. This has left the legislature unable to govern, as stupid decisions are forced upon them by law--don't increase spending, but provide this service. So, for example, outrageous overruns in overtime because of hiring freezes. Expense emergency repairs instead of rational upgrades and maintenance.

Governing is making choices. When people share a house, they can see the discussion, debates, dilemmas and decisions that govern their dollars' destinies. When 313 million people share the midsection of a continent, they can't possibly see the range of reasons and relevant rationales for what's "right."

Additionally, decisions that make sense at the individual level are often disastrous in aggregate. This is what makes organizational behavior such a science. MIT's "Beer Game" from the 1960s illustrates this well -- participants play retail store managers, wholesalers, and plant managers. Demand for the product doubles--but the system quickly breaks down and finally collapses, leaving the company out of business (no orders for years) and wholesales and retailers with fantastic overstock. Everyone blames the other "stupid" people in the game, but actually everyone is misreading the data, interpreting as a rising trend a single and constant jump in demand.

Nor is this theoretical. Remember People's Express? This is exactly what happened to them--they grew so fast that they collapsed. Sounds contradictory, but happens fairly frequently.

It's not a perfect system. But the Founding Fathers had excellent reasons for choosing as they did. I for one would have to oppose a "just let the people decide" every issue. It would be a disaster.

Nor would the people be satisfied. Charges that someone was manipulating the voting data would start immediately.

quote:

Need a contemporary example? California. Because of the proposition structure, voters are able to refuse to increase revenue collection, and yet refuse to cut popular services.

quote:

We pay about 80% of our income in taxes of one form or another. Be it gas tax, sales tax, luxery tax, ciggerate tax, alcahol tax, not to mention income tax. If our great leaders can not run the country on that kind of income then we need to hold their feet to the fire and remove them from office, be it by election or recall.

quote:

Colorado Springs solved their lack of sales tax revenue budget shortfall/inability to raise taxes by shutting off the lights and turning them back on for a fee, leading to lit neighborhoods where people could/would pay and dark neighborhoods otherwise.

They also resumed maintenance in parks for a fee, but citizens had to remove the trash themselves.

Facing Budget Gap, Colorado City Shuts Off Lights
I can't find yesterday's story on NPR yet but here's an earlier one:

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

75.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I think we have all heard people on these forums lamenting about how we live in a democracy. Well, we don't. Obviously, we live in a democratic republic.

The founders thought it best - in a time before the internet, cars, trains, planes, etc. - to have representatives come from their communities and be "the voice of the people" After all, Vox populi vox Dei . For all I know, that was a really good idea, back then (and looking back, I think I agree) but, it isn't back then, anymore.

Winston Churchill once said: "The best argument against democracy is five minutes, spent with the average voter." I don't know if I agree with that but, I take his point; there's a ton of ill-informed people in this country and because they are, I'm glad they don't vote.

But, here's the thing: why don't we live in a democracy? We have the technology to have monthly or even bi-monthly votes where we can easily count each individual vote and we can truly let "Vox populi vox pais" ("The voice of the people is the voice of the country" I hope I used the correct Latin word, there)?

I am not asking for the: "We could never do it. We're too entrenched in ..." Forget that. Do you think it would be preferrable to send the 535 fat-asses (that don't really represent us, anyway) in Washington, D.C. along with their staffs packing and just let the majority rule? We'd certainly free up congressional gridlock.

I think it's an interesting idea.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'd imagine the main issue with a scheme like that is how access to universal assemblies would be set up, and how everybody's access could be insured in a population the size of yours. The only time a system like that has ever been tried is communes with a population of a few hundred tops or Greek city states where around five sixths of the population were barred from the assemblies.

Then there's the education DK refers to, though I suspect that's rather less of an issue given the taste most of your elected representatives have for dumbing down any debate to a scarily reductive and witless level.

(Not sure what Caesar and Nero have to do with this, btw: they were both unelected Emperors who allowed certain powers to devolve to the richer members of the aristocracy. No bastard else got a voice, never mind a vote, in the glory that was Rome...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDomCouple

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'd imagine the main issue with a scheme like that is how access to universal assemblies would be set up, and how everybody's access could be insured in a population the size of yours. The only time a system like that has ever been tried is communes with a population of a few hundred tops or Greek city states where around five sixths of the population were barred from the assemblies.

Then there's the education DK refers to, though I suspect that's rather less of an issue given the taste most of your elected representatives have for dumbing down any debate to a scarily reductive and witless level.

(Not sure what Caesar and Nero have to do with this, btw: they were both unelected Emperors who allowed certain powers to devolve to the richer members of the aristocracy. No bastard else got a voice, never mind a vote, in the glory that was Rome...)

Exactly. There are several political structures that would work great in theory, but on the scale necessary to run a large country they would fall apart. Democracy and Communism being the most obvious two. Both would work great, in theory, if the population was kept to a small number. But, once you increase the numbers to the size of the United States (or nearly any country on the planet), it becomes untenable.

I don't think the American political system is perfect, by any means, and there are certainly a whole host of elected representatives who don't take the time to educate themselves before voting. But, in the end, I'd still choose a Republic over a Democracy any day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDomCouple

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'd imagine the main issue with a scheme like that is how access to universal assemblies would be set up, and how everybody's access could be insured in a population the size of yours. The only time a system like that has ever been tried is communes with a population of a few hundred tops or Greek city states where around five sixths of the population were barred from the assemblies.

Then there's the education DK refers to, though I suspect that's rather less of an issue given the taste most of your elected representatives have for dumbing down any debate to a scarily reductive and witless level.

(Not sure what Caesar and Nero have to do with this, btw: they were both unelected Emperors who allowed certain powers to devolve to the richer members of the aristocracy. No bastard else got a voice, never mind a vote, in the glory that was Rome...)

Exactly. There are several political structures that would work great in theory, but on the scale necessary to run a large country they would fall apart. Democracy and Communism being the most obvious two. Both would work great, in theory, if the population was kept to a small number. But, once you increase the numbers to the size of the United States (or nearly any country on the planet), it becomes untenable.

I don't think the American political system is perfect, by any means, and there are certainly a whole host of elected representatives who don't take the time to educate themselves before voting. But, in the end, I'd still choose a Republic over a Democracy any day.

Ummmm....it`s not a pure republic .......either........

quote:

ORIGINAL: MASTERMOLDER

Are you people out of your minds???? We pay about 80% of our income in taxes of one form or another. Be it gas tax, sales tax, luxery tax, ciggerate tax, alcahol tax, not to mention income tax. If our great leaders can not run the country on that kind of income then we need to hold their feet to the fire and remove them from office, be it by election or recall.  Our problem in this country is that we are too damn lazy to take the time and the responsibility to act.  Sooooo, where does the blame lie?  With you and me

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDomCouple

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDomCouple

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'd imagine the main issue with a scheme like that is how access to universal assemblies would be set up, and how everybody's access could be insured in a population the size of yours. The only time a system like that has ever been tried is communes with a population of a few hundred tops or Greek city states where around five sixths of the population were barred from the assemblies.

Then there's the education DK refers to, though I suspect that's rather less of an issue given the taste most of your elected representatives have for dumbing down any debate to a scarily reductive and witless level.

(Not sure what Caesar and Nero have to do with this, btw: they were both unelected Emperors who allowed certain powers to devolve to the richer members of the aristocracy. No bastard else got a voice, never mind a vote, in the glory that was Rome...)

Exactly. There are several political structures that would work great in theory, but on the scale necessary to run a large country they would fall apart. Democracy and Communism being the most obvious two. Both would work great, in theory, if the population was kept to a small number. But, once you increase the numbers to the size of the United States (or nearly any country on the planet), it becomes untenable.

I don't think the American political system is perfect, by any means, and there are certainly a whole host of elected representatives who don't take the time to educate themselves before voting. But, in the end, I'd still choose a Republic over a Democracy any day.

Ummmm....it`s not a pure republic .......either........

Oh, I know. But, in the grand scheme of things it is closer to a Republic than a Democracy. I was just being succinct for the sake of discussion. I suppose I should have said "I'll still choose a quasi-Republic with Democratic, Socialist, and Fascist tendencies over a pure Democracy any day."