Back in the 1700s, when there was no way to communicate between colonies, there was a need for a representative democracy because the country was so big. The corrupt politicians that stay in office for decades at a time can now be replaced by the people because of a simple invention, the Internet. People could listen to a debate of each topic to be voted on on the television and then go on their iPhones or computers to vote. Their votes would be sent in to a central collection agency, where the votes would be counted and broadcasted live. Once one side of the vote won, then that law or bill would be put into effect.
The American people are angry in that they cannot make the decisions but only elected corrupt politicians can. Because Americans have no voting power on the decisions that they want to make for their country while corrupt officials do is the reason why US politics is very divided. Most Americans cite the preamble of the US Constitution "We the People" to justify this. In reality, "We the People" signifies that the US political system should based on 'direct democracy'.
Only one country follows this example and that country is Switzerland. Switzerland is a federal republic, just like the United States, but adopts a political system of 'direct democracy' other than 'represenative democracy'. In this system, the Swiss people vote and decide the decisions they make that benefits their country. Plus, the country is not politically divided.
American politics would be less divided if it changed to a 'direct democracy'. This fulfills the "We the People" preamble of the US Constitution.
This would work because the internet. Before in the 1900s no would be a legit argument but w/ the internet it would make everything a lot more easy. Not only would there be no president but there would be no lying polititians and no backstabbing governers. There is my argument.
I think Direct Democracy is a good tool to advance our representation. Some argue that it surrenders matters to “mob rule”, which can be influenced by those who own or control the media. But I believe it is more difficult for the elite to influence the masses than to surreptitiously line the fat pockets of a few politicians, or even threaten them. But to alleviate the possible threat of mob rule, a mechanism can be put into place as currently exists between for example a congress and senate. An idea may be proposed by congress and sent to the senate for approval. For some reason the senate might make tweaks or changes to the submission and send it back. In the same manner, any citizen of a country or region should be able to propose an idea and the rest be able to vote on it. If an idea has a popular vote, it can be sent to congress for processing. If the educated lawmakers have an objection, they can send it back to the people with an explanation why they think it is not a good idea. In this way the general public becomes more informed, also because they are now more engaged in politics and feel that their voice has a difference. As opposed to feeling disenfranchised and not bothering to show up at the polls every four years to elect one politician or another who all mostly seem to serve the corporate interests or their funders anyway.
For this reason I have created a forum at http://arealdemocracy.org/ where anyone in a particular region can submit an idea and the rest vote on it. Do we want our tax dollars to go towards fighting a new war? We should be entitled to vote on such important matters. The internet now allows for such constant referendums without the need for great costs. The discussions should be ongoing, and most importantly, to engage the general public to get involved, like the ancient Greeks, fathers of our democracy, who would gather in the square to discuss and debate issues. Obviously with our greatly expanded population this is no longer practical, but the internet certainly allows for it.
A pure direct democracy would be a disaster. We'd probably go through periods where laws are changing every day, or every hour as it teeters on the 50% mark and people keep changing their minds.
It would also be bad for people's rights whenever the majority disagrees with them.
But in a limited fashion direct democracy could be beneficial. Sometimes referenda and initiative can push forward positive changes that politicians won't push for because they are bought off by corporate and special interests.
Recall elections can also be good, since it incentivizes politicians to be accountable to voters.
But these things should require supermajorities to pass. Otherwise you can get some pretty awful things from temporary, unreflective, and impossible opinions people sometimes adopt.
10.103. That's the number of Bills Congress went through last year. In what fantasy does a man believe the General Populace can deal with 10.000 bills? That is about 27-28 bills a day. Including Weekends and Holidays. It is literally impossible for the General Populace to respond to all these bills. The fact is, The Average America has Jobs. Family. Friends. Life in General. And Everything inbetween. How do they find time? Most don't find time to even dscuss the major bills beyond superficial two-sentence pictures on Facebook.
Every bill needs some level of consideration. People only talk about the major topics. They only have take to thoroughly know a few topics in general. How can they be expected to give consideration to 10.000 topics. We need elected representatives in order to give all these topics the consideration they need. Or at least more consideration then we could.
You make the dangerous mistake of assuming that Congress doesn't Represent us. I disagree. Congress represents us near perfectly. How so? Because American's refuse to compromise with each other. Americans are not a single group, fighting an ideological war agianst some misterous micro-minority that seems to have all the power. We are a thousand ideologies that are so deluded in our imagined majority (most people seem to think they are the "American" people), that many refuse to give voice to the other side. At the best, it is only given condescandingly. If the American Population refused to compromise, How can Congress? Any representative who dared to compromise with the enemy (which is how many view the opposing parties) would be shut out by their former supporters.
And on truly contriversial topics where neither side holds a dominant majority, it isn't just wrong for Congress to force a law without compromise (which they won't do, since their voters would turn on them), it is downright a breach of their powers. It is also something to be concerned about, since it would imply that Congress's ideological Makeup is different from that of the Nations. This is truley an instance of "Man in the Mirror". It isn't a problem with Congress, it is a problem with the population. I know, it's sacrilege to dare suggest the People are wrong.
In Instances where the nation is divided on a subject, it should be left to the states, which will be able to create a law representing their own populace better without interference from other ideologically opposing states.
No, Representative Democracy isn't perfect. But Direct Democracy would fail immediately as the only bills that draw attention would be the few that the Media make big. In fact, I would dare to say that in a Direct Democracy, the Media would become our new Law Makers through their ability to control the views of millions of Americans.
Representative Democracy isn't perfect, but it's far better then Direct Democracy. If there is a problem, there will be a solution. That Solution is not "Try a Logically Worse System".