No.
There's way too many people with too little time.
You cannot have direct democracy in any country today. In order for direct democracy to work you need a highly educated, highly connected, highly informed population. And since most people are idiots... it's doomed to fail from the get go.
Say an idiot makes a law that says: everyone should get 50k $. A lot of idiots would vote for yes, thinking, sure, i could use the money.
And the intelligent people who would think it through will vote no... but the overwhelming majority of stupid will vote yes.
No. Representative government is proving to be too much of a challenge for a population that insists on voting without grasping the issues. Direct democracy would crash and burn almost at once.
The more politicians rely on favorability and opinion polls, the more I think we may already have a direct democracy of sorts.
I could have worked on this post some more, but I don't have time. So it's not the best explanation.
democracy is the most vile form of government-- james madison
"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Louis D. Brandeis
no you cant have democracy, because its fails, because it concentrates all direct power into the hands of the people, and ...that is a bad thing.
why do you think the founders did not choose democracy for America?......becuase it will not last.
federalist 47--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
we are a democratic republic if i am not mistaken.
"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
WRONG?...you have been lead to believe something which is not true!
article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution--The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
what is republican government?............. it is mixed constitution
The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional] convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.
barkmann, if the founding fathers hated democracy, they would not have put into the Constitution the ammendment process the led to the creation of the 17th ammendment and the direct election's of senators.
how can you explain how the original ideas of Madison and Jefferson changed with the coming of progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano roosevelt, and Robert La Follette.
the founders did not choose democracy becuase they read books of why governments fail, and democracy fails.
democracy concentrates 100% direct power into the hands of the people, and this leads to majority rule.....thats what democracy is majority rule, and the founders hated that because the rights of the minority are not protected.
the founders sought to spread power out ,not concentrate it, that is why republican government.. the people are given 50% of direct power, and the state legislatures are given 50% of direct power, and the people are given 100 % indirect power thru the vote...for the house and their state officials.
madison is saying in federalist 47, if you give anyone, or group or all of the people all direct power they will misuse it and become tyrannical.
federalist 47--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
democracy is collectivism, and because the house is by direct election, collectivist legislation can come from that lower side of the house, but because the senate is in the hands of the state legislature, its interest is different than the house, it serves as a block to stop the collectivist bills of the house, and Madison states in federalist 63.
federalist 63--The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.
madison states that the senate is the first bulwark against collectivism, and the USSC the second, as Madison states...the states are the guardian of the rights of the people.
thew founders created the government this way, so that BOTH the interest of the state and the people have to come together for any legislation in congress to pass.
the house is the interest of the people, and thesnrte is the interest of the states...........both side have to agreed and they interest met, for any bill to become law.
in the 1890 progression came into being and the idea of america as a democracy was promoted and taught, this was a lie!
the founders state clearly that republican government is the most HIGHEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and the people have to be educated or it will be lost, and turn into majority rule, and destroy itself.
again i thought we were a democratic republic, incorperating concepts from democratic and republican forms of government.
and its not like the republic is the perfect system of government: look at the republic England created after the roundheads seized control after winning the english civil war.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?