By a Vote of the People

[DrFree]

I went to political caucus yesterday. We all got up to make inanely simplistic statements about why we preferred our chosen candidate. It was all mildly fun, but as a way of selecting our party's candidate for President, it was a poor approximation of democracy. Only a tiny fragment of the electorate participated, and their "votes" were then roughly approximated by selecting delegates to further conventions and caucuses, that would then approximate them even further for higher conventions. Who cares about one voter, one equal vote?

Political parties try to make the caucus process into a fun process in order to keep our minds off the fact that they hold a monopoly on a guaranteed slot in the final election, and they really don't care that the process for selecting the person for that slot is not democratic. They don't really care that the process is so costly in terms of time invested that it discourages most people from participating. The process keeps the party in power; it assures that only the true believers are going to show up.

Is it any wonder that American politics is increasingly polarized and partisan? Is it any wonder that politicians follow Karl Rove's lead and cater only to their base rather than negotiate across the aisle.

The only way to America back on track of working together is to reduce the power of the political parties, to eliminate their monopoly on slots in the final elections.

I propose the following amendment to the Constitution:

The President of the United States shall be nominated and elected by a direct vote of the people.
​

This would get rid of the caucuses and conventions, as well as the Electoral College. It would mean that the parties would have to earn their right to have a candidate in the final election.

Power to the People!

 

[Pathless]

I second that motion. I also participated in a caucus yesterday and it was a combination of sad, pathetic, inane, and ridiculous.

Of course, direct popular vote sounds simple enough, but can we manage it? What would the mechanics of it be? Like the caucuses, only more direct, with less bullshit? That might work.

We also need more parties. Green party, Libertarian party, Natural Law party, what else? Worker's party, Anarcho-Syndicalist party, Funk party. A direct vote with many parties would pose its own problems, but would be far better than the current scam.

 

[cyberpi]

What I propose is a movement away from representative democracy, and towards a direct democracy. Voting on people is not right. Voting on issues, bills, agreements, and laws, is what is rightful.

While there is fear of lesser educated voters overwhelming the smarter ones, etc... or the majority overwhelming the minority, etc... when a person votes there should be 3 options: Yes, No, or Abstain. A person's mind opens up to the responsibility of voting when there is real power behind it. A lot of money would be directed towards the public to actually educate or influence them, seeing as they would then actually possess real collective power. So then those ignorant, lesser educated voters would actually take interest and receive the required information to become smarter, more educated voters. If a person declines the responsibility they can abstain. If a person wants to vote, they must have the right and the power to vote on every single line item.

A person then asks if it is reasonable that a person with Down's Syndrome for example to be afforded the same voting power as a person with a PhD in politics. I find the answer is YES... you are darn right. Not because of the education, but because it is the agreement or law that the person has to live by. Even at a young age, people know they are responsible for the choices they make. It is taught universally in one form or another. With a vote, it is the exact same thing. People can still abstain if they wish or don't have the time to become educated to the level they feel appropriate. But people know that their vote on a single leader is darn near immaterial. There is little to no power in it. Either way it is lunacy placing the person in power instead of the public. Collectively, the public is brilliant... why are we placing power into one person, party, or administration?

What is the function of government then? Whatever the people assign it. It could formulate the proposed laws or agreements that the people should vote on. It could help acquire information from foreign places and educate the public. You can still vote on the elite brains to come up with the ideas in government, but those ideas have got to clear some form of public vote in order for it to be legal law. Otherwise, that 'LAW' is illegal. If you ask a person to pay taxes, they must have power over that money or it is an outright crime in taking it. It is called theft. Many governments should be in jail. Right now an elite small portion of the population controls an enormous amount of wealth because it has traditionally been up to them to make the decisions. Big lobbying businesses put big dollars into that government when they should have been putting it into the people. The people collectively need to take responsibility and take raw power back from the government. More than there ever has been in the history of the USA or any other government on the face of the planet. Times and situations are changing.

Why? Voting on people is not right. Voting on issues, bills, agreements, and laws, is right. There is some of the latter with the former, but not much. Not in a good way. If the people's signature is not on the law, then it is illegal. It is quite simply NOT the people's law. It is not lawful before God for a few people in government to make an agreement and then call it mine. That is where I stand.

 

[Pathless]

What I propose is a movement away from representative democracy, and towards a direct democracy. Voting on people is not right. Voting on issues, bills, agreements, and laws, is what is rightful.

I agree with much of your post. I am all for direct democracy. Education is key, and so is personal responsibility, civic engagement. In order to have a viable direct democracy, people will have to dedicate time and energy to being engaged citizens. In the current neoliberal capitalist frame, America is not ready for such a radical change. I wish that we were.

In order to get to direct democracy, we will need to demonstrate responsibility, intelligence, commitment, and willpower. We will need to take control of the processes of governing to truly make it for the people, by the people, and of the people. This is not something that is going to happen without concerted, organized, ongoing effort; perseverance in the struggle, with the knowledge that change does not come overnight, does not come all at once, but is won by an ongoing commitment and struggle.

Ideally, democracy should be direct and being direct, in flux. Constant change, constant revolution; revolution and flux as the norm. Society, in order to be a viable organism, must model the organic processes of life and thought. A viable model for society is the idea of the dissipative structure. "The key to understanding dissipative structures is to realize that they maintain themselves in a stable state far from equilibrium," states Fritjof Capra. Elsewhere I have written about the social organism. I think that a theory of an organic social body is useful in shifting our paradigm of democracy from one that is still entrenched in hierarchies and classical science to one that recognizes plurality, complementary structures, holistics, and chaotic order. Chaotic order? Sure. Imagine councils of diverse people in many towns, citites, and villages; imagine the mixing of different cultures: the American Indian, the African American, the Asian American, the Italian American, the Mexican American, the Irish American all coming together in meetings that last not a pre-determined time, but as long as it takes to reach understanding and make decisions.

We also have to reconsider our perception of time. For five hundred years--longer--time has been an economic concept, something to be used up, consumed, translated into money. We abuse time. We must begin to consider time differently, to recognize it as mysterious, flexible, and malleable. We must begin to respect time and honor it in the way that many indigenous cultures honored it and struggle even now to live on "Indian time" (or "Mexican time," or... maybe you can fill in more blanks). In order for society to transform from its current hierarchical, dominating, consuming, elitist, progressive model into an organic, partnering, creative, democratic, sustaining model, people will need to find new ways to work and be--ways which educate and inspire us to participate in not only civic society but in life itself. Instead of mortgaging our lives by working 40+ hours a week in order to survive, save, scrimp, and horde time for later consumption in vacation, we need to develop a more holistic approach to work and being. Doing this requires reclaiming time as expansive, not reacting to degraded time, not forcing ourselves into the schedules of commodified time.

Clearly, to me, there is much work to do, both personal and social, in order for all of us to move towards a more vibrant, life-affirming, democratic, and joyful way of living. In order to change the structures of government, we the people need to change the structures of our lives.

Resources:
Capra quote from and ideas about time informed/inspired by Jay Griffiths' A Sideways Look at Time (or Pip Pip, for those in the U.K.)

 

[wil]

No answers here, just observations.

Prior to 1929 the dictionary definition of Democracy included mobocracy, the rule of the mob.

There is a reason we are not a direct Democracy as no true democracy lasts, eventually the people vote themselves all the money and the gov't becomes completely insolvent v. actually or theoretically insolvent as we are.

California has these issues as the voters vote for things their state coffers cannot provide.

If we were a true democracy we would not have passed civil rights in th 60's or given the women the right to vote, or passed the American Disabilities Act.

The masses are often not ready to make the changes needed, hence our Republic.

 

[path_of_one]

I'm with wil. While a true democracy is ideal, it only works if people are actually educated and unselfish. Otherwise, you end up with civil rights violations galore and a bankrupt government. How many Americans would vote to end taxes all together?

Furthermore, I do not think all votes should count the same. In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, no. Why? First, because big business could easily control people who are not educated (they already kind of do, but it would get worse). Second, there would need to be a lot of checks on such a system to ensure people were not selling their vote to the highest bidder. Third, I don't want major decisions about things like foreign policy made by people who know nothing about other cultures or their histories, modern governments, and policy strategies.

In short, direct democracy is social suicide and doesn't work, especially in a nation where people have been culturally taught to be short-term horizon thinkers, to priviledge getting more stuff and cash over benefits to the group and future generations.

I am for a system where we do away with the two-party thing and the buffering between people and their representative. But I am definitely for a representative government. Perhaps a different representative government... for example, the people who decide about issues of energy are a combination of the current political folks PLUS an additional panel of scientists/professionals who are appointed based on their credentials and publications. Most of the time the scientific/academic/professional community is working for the good of sustainability, the environment, and the lower to middle classes. This would help balance the problem that many politicians end up working for big business.

 

[wil]

I heard once that some native american tribe had as its decision making two questions.

What would the last seven generations of leaders think about our decision?

What will the next seven generations think about our decision?

Always gives me goosebumps.

 

[path_of_one]

I've heard that before too, wil. Unfortunately, in our society people rarely even think about what it will be like when their kids are grown up.

Perhaps it is that our society is so young. Seven generations, if making a generation span 70 years, is nearly 500 years, which is twice as long as the US has existed as a nation. Certainly materialism causes short-term thinking, but perhaps people also just do not have the sense of time-depth in our culture to think in terms of many generations of impact to their decisions..

 

[wil]

I've always thought of a generation as 20 years, and 140 years of contemplation was enough for me, however...

I understand in business management classes in Japan long range goals are categorized in centuries, phenomenal thought.

Big thinkers of the past contemplated the future, what it would be like. Some do today as well but what they fail to contemplate is the steps that need to be taken today.

 

[DrFree]

Selecting the President By a Vote of the People

The question of direct v representative democracy is an interesting one, and I admit I'm torn.

• On the one hand, many of the issues we face - globalized economies, global climate change, global terrorism, minority rights, failing infrastructure, failing educational systems - seem too complex to be solved without the kind of expertise that requires a dedication that citizen farmers (and retailers and truck drivers and so) cannot offer.
• On the other hand, our current crop of polarized, partisan politicians are failing so miserably that almost anything would be better.

But the question I wanted to tackle in this thread is not that big question, but a much smaller one: can the direct election of the President, without the monopolies of the parties on the nomination process or the Electoral College, give us a process that will move us back to the center?

 

[wil]

Re: Selecting the President By a Vote of the People

But the question I wanted to tackle in this thread is not that big question, but a much smaller one: can the direct election of the President, without the monopolies of the parties on the nomination process or the Electoral College, give us a process that will move us back to the center?

Right now we have somewhat of a sieve, weeding out those not durable enough for the task.

I was disappointed that Edwards dropped out, but then when I read his reasons I wondered if he was really capable of being president. (whatever that means).

So without this we'd have a few hundred choices the first year and tens of thousands the second go round.

So how would we focus them down? how would we let them get their message to us.

The internet, youtubal concepts are ripe for the picking but we'd still have to narrow the field with multiple eliminations?

More questions less ways. yes the electoral college was to assist when we were operating on horseback, and the primary process was designed to move it out of smoke filled rooms but how do we streamline it?

I consider other things that we use, we never focus on just one. Cell phones, cars, washers and dryers, we all use different ones and have different opinions of what is best...But if we have three or thirty figureheads we'll have less accountablity...

I got it.

Maybe we have a council of 12 and every three months one is replaced....we vote for the forty thousand people running for the office on the internet, of the 12 the one with the lowest amount of votes leaves the island, and out of the 40,000 the one with the most votes moves in.

By the way there is no, zero, none freakin salary for the job, and with this method they won't even get to go on speakin tours, there'll be so many excouncil members in 5 years it'll be like those singin idols...a dime a dozen!

 

[DrFree]

Re: Selecting the President By a Vote of the People

So without this we'd have a few hundred choices the first year and tens of thousands the second go round.

So how would we focus them down? how would we let them get their message to us.

Good question, though it is a question for Congress in writing the enabling legislation, not for the principle that would be established by the Constitutional amendment.

The first thing to remember is that the political parties aren't going away. They will still be there to focus money and energy to get people of their persuasion nominated. They have their say; it's just not the final say in who is nominated.

I've often thought that the following process makes sense:

1. Conduct the first election after a reasonable period of campaigning.
2. If anyone gets a majority, he or she is the winner and we all go back to work.
3. If an election doesn't yield a winner with a clear majority, winnow the field down to the top candidates whose combined vote is a majority, and repeat the process.

For example, if 20 million voted for Smith, 19 million for Ahmed, and 18 million for Chou, then Chou would be eliminated (since a majority voted for Smith and Ahmed), and a run-off would be held between Smith and Ahmed. On the other hand if 29 million voted for Chou, 15 million for Smith, and 13 million for Ahmed, Chou would have a majority.

In this way the majority in each election determines who goes to the next, and ultimately who is elected. In practice, the field would be winnowed down very rapidly. I think it would be rare when more than three elections would be held.

Each party would have to work hard in each election to make sure that one of its candidates was in the majority and would go on to the next. I suspect that there would be a lot of pressure from the parties select a single strongest candidate quickly, to improve the chances of going on to the next. That same pressure might well fracture the party into factions.

Another change would be that it doesn't matter what state you live in. Your vote weighs the same as everyone else's.

I think that would still be preferable than the situation today where the parties really don't care whose nominated, since they're guaranteed a spot in the final election.

Namiste

 

[cyberpi]

I have a few questions for those who believe in the representative democracy... the alleged republic:

1. Do you feel responsible? Do you make your representative's decisions your own? Before God, are you in any way responsible for what a representative does? Will you go to heaven or hell based on the actions or innactions of your representatives?

2. If you do NOT believe in a person judging a person, why do you help employ a government to judge?

3. Would you accept a vote to be taken of American's of whether or not to blindly accept a representative democracy's decision versus having a public vote for ratification?

4. If you truly desire a representation, why would you not give up your right to vote for anything or anyone, and instead select a representative to make all the selections, voting for you? (i.e. President, etc...) By the math, that is what causes the two dominant parties... people don't vote independently as it is.

5. Do you feel that you have the right to extract taxes or imprisonment of your neighbor who does not wish to give to your elected representative's or elected president's decisions or cause?

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to consider and answer my questions.

 

[gp1628]

Ive always felt that ALL forms of government work until they reach a certain size and then ALL forms of government tend to develop problems. Democracy is no different.

I understand that more people voted for the last "American Idol" than voted for the last president? Maybe we should have each state send a candidate, do a show like american idol, vote them off till we get to the last one and that person will be president?

 

[path_of_one]

1. Do you feel responsible? Do you make your representative's decisions your own? Before God, are you in any way responsible for what a representative does? Will you go to heaven or hell based on the actions or innactions of your representatives?

I feel responsible for making decisions about the best representative, given the information I have access to. I feel the exact same way when I vote on an actual issue- I make my decision as best I can given the information I have.

I am responsible before my God for making the best, most ethical decisions possible given my information and my capacity to understand it. I do not believe I am held responsible for things I don't know or understand, or for other people's deception.

I don't believe in hell. And I don't believe heaven is some reward for my actions or the actions of people I choose to represent me. Depending on what you think heaven is, I may or may not think that it exists. My own beliefs about heaven are such that I believe it (union with God) is entirely granted by grace. My actions and decisions are a result of my desire to serve God and other people, and have nothing to do with avoiding punishment or seeking reward.

2. If you do NOT believe in a person judging a person, why do you help employ a government to judge?

I believe that societies are responsible for judging actions (not people) that are socially and environmentally harmful in order to ensure these actions are not perpetuated.

I do not believe in people judging others' religious beliefs, salvation, heart, or thought process. I also believe that people should not judge anything that is not harmful to other beings. (If it harms no one and nothing, it's none of my business.) Finally, I do not believe people should judge other people. No one really knows the other person, and so they can't judge them. They can only judge whether actions are legal or illegal, ethical or non-ethical, based on the society's norms and/or laws.

3. Would you accept a vote to be taken of American's of whether or not to blindly accept a representative democracy's decision versus having a public vote for ratification?

This is a question that is written in a classically biased and leading manner...

I could just as easily write it: "Would you accept a vote to be taken of Americans of whether or not to have uneducated and uninformed people decide matters of great social and environmental importance, or to have these important decisions made by publically acknowledged and elected experts?"

Like I said above, I don't think either way is best. I'm more of a middle of the road person- a combination of elected representatives and representatives of the people selected from the non-profit, educational, and scientific sector.

As for accepting such a vote, what difference does it make? If it were to come to pass, I don't see how not accepting it would help anything. These are processes that are bigger than me.

4. If you truly desire a representation, why would you not give up your right to vote for anything or anyone,

Because I am not an expert on anything and anyone. I am an expert on only a few things, and that is what I should help make decisions on. The other stuff should be based on someone who knows what they're talking about and what the repercussions of their actions will be. I acknowledge what I can and can't do. I think it would be a big mistake to have people who know virtually nothing about very complex issues making the decisions. It would be a short trip to the end of our nation. It just doesn't work, which is why it doesn't exist in other large nation-states.

and instead select a representative to make all the selections, voting for you? (i.e. President, etc...)

Well, currently we have a bit of an "in-between" system- I vote on local issues and have representatives for national issues. I think it would be good to change some things, but not to leave a moderate position between the extremes of complete republic (which we don't have) and complete open democracy (which we don't have).

By the math, that is what causes the two dominant parties... people don't vote independently as it is.

I don't buy that. Lots of people don't, but some do. I vote based on the issue, not the party. I don't belong to any party and I know a lot of other people who are the same way.

5. Do you feel that you have the right to extract taxes or imprisonment of your neighbor who does not wish to give to your elected representative's or elected president's decisions or cause?

I don't know what the imprisonment thing is about- are you saying if they don't pay taxes? I think people need to be required to pay taxes, yes, whether they like it or not. I get frustrated that much of my tax money is going where I do not think it is best, yet if we did not require people to pay taxes, most people would (out of short-term greed) stop paying them and our society would fall apart. We'd have no public services. So while I disagree about having half my tax money currently go to a war, I feel there are better ways for me to show my disagreement and work for change than to stop paying taxes.

And remember... it is not "my" elected representative. It is the majority's elected representative. There is a difference.

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to consider and answer my questions.

No problem. This is interesting. While in utopia, I would prefer democracy (or just plain anarchy), it doesn't seem to work in actual practice if you look at the nations out there. Too many big and complex issues, too little education and group-centered thinking on the part of individuals.

 

[DrFree]

Hi path_of_one.

I like your answers to cyberpi's questions. I especially like this answer:

Because I am not an expert on anything and anyone. I am an expert on only a few things, and that is what I should help make decisions on. The other stuff should be based on someone who knows what they're talking about and what the repercussions of their actions will be. I acknowledge what I can and can't do. I think it would be a big mistake to have people who know virtually nothing about very complex issues making the decisions. It would be a short trip to the end of our nation. It just doesn't work, which is why it doesn't exist in other large nation-states.

In a pluralistic society that's growing more diverse all the time, the greatest expertise we need is skill in negotiating solutions to problems that most people can live with. Ideally negotiation leads to win-win solutions, when people recognize that what different sides really want are not completely incompatible. Usually the result is less satisfying. No one gets everything they want, but no one loses everything.

Take for example the issue of abortion. In the US, partly because the question was made to turn on an interpretation of the Constitution, the stakes have seemed to be all or nothing: either Roe v Wade stands and there can be no limit on abortion, or it falls and all abortions become illegal. In Europe, where the issue was not assumed to be decided by a constitutional principle, it had to be negotiated in parliaments. The result was laws that provided criteria which defined which abortions were legal and which were not. No one got everything; no one lost everything. And the issue never became a litmus test for anyone.

Unfortunately, negotiation takes time, it takes skill, and it takes a willingness to sit down with the people you disagree with, talk respectfully with them, and work out a solution that can work. Moreover, not everyone can sit at the table. All sides must appoint representatives to protect their interests and work out the details. But then the solution has to be sold: Representatives have to convince their constituents that the compromise was reasonable, or at least acceptable.

That of course is not what the poles of the parties want. They want to WIN! Negotiation and compromise are not a highly regarded activities in Karl Rove's polarized partisan universe. What the party powerful want is skill in getting out the base and confusing the middle.

The Constitution provided direct democracy for the House of Representatives. Later it was amended to provide direct democracy for the Senate. It's time to provide the same for the way we select our President.

Namiste

 

[cyberpi]

Who realizes that they themselves are NOT an expert at everything, but then elects a President or a Representative to make decisions, making laws for people, against even the people's majority collective will, and living with a massive amount of oppressive power as if he were an expert at anything? Why should I vote for someone who I KNOW is NOT the expert at anything except at getting elected? I see that people are trying to elect a God... out of a man.

Do I have the right to elect someone to write the laws that you and I must obey? No? Then what makes anyone think they have the right to elect someone to write the laws for myself and neighbor to obey? You don't. I disown representative democracy. No government represents me. Not in my name. I refuse to elect another man to rule over my neighbor... my neighbor can represent himself, and I represent myself.

 

[path_of_one]

Who realizes that they themselves are NOT an expert at everything, but then elects a President or a Representative to make decisions, making laws for people, against even the people's majority collective will, and living with a massive amount of oppressive power as if he were an expert at anything?

A person that recognizes something has to get done, and a President doesn't rule by himself. He comes with a cabinet of people (experts) to inform him on a variety of topics. And she (may be a woman in 08!) is balanced by the House and Senate, and the judicial branch of government. All of whom are more educated than the typical American and have in their branches experts to inform them on all the various issues such as foreign policy, energy, the economy, etc.

It isn't that the representative is herself an expert, it is that they are educated enough to use the experts provided to them.

So I vote for a representative who most closely matches my own ideals, and then hope they will live up to those ideals, being informed by the experts that work for the Federal government for that purpose. I also attempt to vote for people I think are reasonably intelligent and well-educated. The type that will recognize what they don't know, and will go find the people who do know.

Why should I vote for someone who I KNOW is NOT the expert at anything except at getting elected?

For the reasons I outlined above. Most of the populace is uneducated, apathetic, and unwilling and/or unable to make sense out of experts' advice. The hope is that you elect someone who shares some or most of your ideals who happens to be educated and want to do something about the issues, so they will take advice from experts and make decisions about it.

It isn't a perfect system (naturally, what is?). However, it is a system that is preferable to decisions being made by people who are not only uneducated about the issues but also unwilling to spend any time learning about them.

I see that people are trying to elect a God... out of a man.

OK. That's your opinion and what you see. I see a bunch of folks trying to get a very large national government that works decently well and avoid total anarchy.

The President is hardly a God, nor does the President wield as much power as you propose. Our government is a system of checks and balances. Bush had a lot of power because the Legislative branch was Republican for most of his two terms and backed his decisions. But it isn't like the President is a dictator or anything. Much as I can't stand Bush myself, even I will admit that.

This nation was founded as a Republic for these types of reasons. And there is a reason that no nation, and certainly not large ones, runs the way you want it to. That's my opinion and observation.

Do I have the right to elect someone to write the laws that you and I must obey? No?

You don't have the right to do anything on your own. The majority has a right to elect someone to write the laws, yes.

How else would this really work, by the way? Do you propose that in a nation of approximately 300 million people, any person just throws anything they want out there, no matter how poorly written, how ill-thought out, how destructive to long-term collective good? Then we all vote on them and pray that the average person, who reads at a fourth-grade level and has little or no information about the issue, will choose the right path?

Do you have any idea of how dangerous it would be? Of how our civil rights could go away in a heartbeat? How minority groups could once again be abused? How horrific things like slavery could be legalized?

And then there is the practicality of it all. Any idea on how many laws would float out there to be voted on? Who would write this stuff up? Edit it? How would people vote on the never-ending stream of crap that would be out there? How much time would it take out of people's lives? Do you have any idea of what could happen- just a bunch of swinging back and forth on issues and wasting time and money?

Take the war, for example. Initially, the majority of voters were for it (by polls). But they only wanted to be in there for a year. Now the majority are against it. OK. So you think it's just a matter of go in when people say to and leave when people say to. Except that it isn't that simple. You can't go in to a country, bomb the heck out of it, get rid of its government, and then leave it like that. Why? It results in really bad foreign policy, long term security issues, etc. The public has no real basis for understanding when to go to war, how to do it, when to leave, etc. and most of them aren't very consistent in their own views.

Off the top of my head, I could come up with a ton of likely bad scenarios resulting from this sort of thing.

Then what makes anyone think they have the right to elect someone to write the laws for myself and neighbor to obey? You don't.

Actually, in the United States, I do. Or rather, the majority does.

You may disagree with how the nation was built and how the government runs, but it is what it is and it defines my rights and your rights.

I can think of lots of improvements to the system, but I don't think what you propose would be an improvement. Eh, to each our own. At least in the US we get to freely voice our opinions, which is nice.

I disown representative democracy. No government represents me. Not in my name. I refuse to elect another man to rule over my neighbor... my neighbor can represent himself, and I represent myself.

OK. So do you vote? Do you have any plan for implementing this, or is it just what your ideal is? Do you actively avoid voting since you live in a representative government?

It's all just kind of rhetorical to me. It's like me saying I want to live in a socialist state. I do like socialism more than capitalism, but it's kind of a non-issue. I live in a capitalist state, so it is what it is. I make different choices than many within capitalism, but I cannot make the choice to live in a socialist state by virtue of my birthplace.

 

[gp1628]

Do I have the right to elect someone to write the laws that you and I must obey? No? Then what makes anyone think they have the right to elect someone to write the laws for myself and neighbor to obey? You don't. I disown representative democracy. No government represents me. Not in my name. I refuse to elect another man to rule over my neighbor... my neighbor can represent himself, and I represent myself.

This reminds me of a few things. What was that movie where the presidentcy was a randomly selected joe out of the entire population? Sometimes I wonder if part of our problems was electing professional politicians, who are usually schooled as lawyers. Therefore more laws and negotiations, less answers? Just a thought.

And the part about representative democracy. Sometimes on the news I see other governments. Fights breaking out, punches thrown, or even the english parliment which seems to get loud and even crack jokes about each other. Now THAT seems more like MY representatives. In comparison when watching the american version it seems too polite and boring. I often thought "anyone who thinks that the american houses are representative of the american people have not spent much time with any group of american people."

 

[Pathless]

.And the part about representative democracy. Sometimes on the news I see other governments. Fights breaking out, punches thrown, or even the english parliment which seems to get loud and even crack jokes about each other. Now THAT seems more like MY representatives. In comparison when watching the american version it seems too polite and boring. I often thought "anyone who thinks that the american houses are representative of the american people have not spent much time with any group of american people."

Awesome.

In defense of direct democracy, briefly:

Yes, the United States is too large and too distracted to feasibly implement direct democracy for, of, and by the people. One solution for this would be to decentralize dramatically. The existing framework wouldn't have to be completely overturned. I advocate for independent states and a reversal of current power polarity, so that instead of a top-down institution, government becomes bottom-up, from the burgs and 'burbs and rural country county court houses where town meetings are called and people interact chaotically in the way hinted at by Gandalf, quoted above. Out of civil disorder and debate, which might just be kind of a party, too--why not?--arise the refined policies of democracy. For sure, it's a long process that takes time, which to my mind is a great thing--that way, we aren't beholden to a unitary federal executive who might do something stupid, like say, declare a "War On Terror" days after a criminal attack on the civilians of New York City.

Let's run with that scenario. What would have happened in mid-September of 2001 if, instead of having given power to a unitary executive to commit the entire country to a vague, endless, ideological war, the citizens of New York City were allowed to meet, grieve, and investigate the attacks on the World Trade Center. Who knows? It certainly would have been a slower process, which would have, in my opinion, been a great thing. It would have given people in New York and throughout the country and the world time to consider what had happened and ask some very serious questions--perhaps "why?" would have come up, instead of simply "who's responsible?" and "who do we punish?"

Currently the governmental framework of the United States is a digital, cranked-up speed freak plugged into endless televised networks of corporate marketing. Actual people play a very limited role in this democracy, and the role we have is mediated by this glossy, high-definition, glitzy and glitchy corporate-media-government hybrid. What if we detangled ourselves from the cables, unplugged all of the short-circuiting inputs, and got back to basics? Caucuses are a farce, a minimalist caricature of what real direct democracy can be. Ideally, local organizations would meet monthly, bi-weekly, weekly to mull over the issues and social reality.

The question that we need to ask, I think, is what first steps can we take to get back to a grassroots democracy?