• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some Things Shouldn't Be Left to the People

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Appalled by the Brexit vote, pundits all over have started questioning whether or not democracy is a good idea.

The Washington Post earnestly makes the case that we elect representatives to handle these sorts of things for us, and a direct vote of the demos can lead to disaster, a la Brexit. Too many stupid people can vote and make their voice heard in a referendum. Better to elect representatives who can be bribed and otherwise co-opted. The Trump phenomenon is a good example of how pent up frustration over how elected representatives have ignored the concerns of the people can erupt and ruin everyone's Georgetown cocktail parties. And so the next time the Republican party nominates a candidate for President things will be set up so that very little actual democracy is involved. (Come to think of it, it could still come off that way at the RNC.)

The United States was founded on the principle of a highly attenuated and modified democracy because of the fear that the founders had of pure democracy. Not only was it set up as a federal republic, but not everyone was allowed to vote. Only property owners for a long time were given the franchise. Only much later was that expanded. One can make the case that expanding the franchise has not been good for the country -- our economy and growth was a lot better back in the good old days. As a white male property owner I can attest to the fact that things are going my way less and less. And that, of course, is a bad thing.

But, alas, we couldn't keep the lid on it, and pretty soon renters, blacks and browns, and even (ugh!) women got the franchise. It looks like the elites are not at all happy about the outcome, though. Perhaps we will go to a system like North Korea, where elections are held on a regular basis but the outcomes are pre-determined. Sort of like the Democratic primaries.
 
Hell yes. I couldn't even throw my cocktail party this year with all that democracy crap spewing everywhere. the democrats almost have it perfect. I say we ONLY allow superdelegates of the party elite to vote in primaries... voila: DINO.
 
Last edited:
Appalled by the Brexit vote, pundits all over have started questioning whether or not democracy is a good idea.

The Washington Post earnestly makes the case that we elect representatives to handle these sorts of things for us, and a direct vote of the demos can lead to disaster, a la Brexit. Too many stupid people can vote and make their voice heard in a referendum. Better to elect representatives who can be bribed and otherwise co-opted. The Trump phenomenon is a good example of how pent up frustration over how elected representatives have ignored the concerns of the people can erupt and ruin everyone's Georgetown cocktail parties. And so the next time the Republican party nominates a candidate for President things will be set up so that very little actual democracy is involved. (Come to think of it, it could still come off that way at the RNC.)

The United States was founded on the principle of a highly attenuated and modified democracy because of the fear that the founders had of pure democracy. Not only was it set up as a federal republic, but not everyone was allowed to vote. Only property owners for a long time were given the franchise. Only much later was that expanded. One can make the case that expanding the franchise has not been good for the country -- our economy and growth was a lot better back in the good old days. As a white male property owner I can attest to the fact that things are going my way less and less. And that, of course, is a bad thing.

But, alas, we couldn't keep the lid on it, and pretty soon renters, blacks and browns, and even (ugh!) women got the franchise. It looks like the elites are not at all happy about the outcome, though. Perhaps we will go to a system like North Korea, where elections are held on a regular basis but the outcomes are pre-determined. Sort of like the Democratic primaries.

Nothing new. People have been trying to censor people that they don't agree with for millennia.
 
Actually...we're pretty much screwed.

The People are typically stupid, when it comes to wants vs. needs.

The elected politicians are too crooked when it comes to what's best for the country, and what's best to keep them in office.
 
Appalled by the Brexit vote, pundits all over have started questioning whether or not democracy is a good idea.

The Washington Post earnestly makes the case that we elect representatives to handle these sorts of things for us, and a direct vote of the demos can lead to disaster, a la Brexit. Too many stupid people can vote and make their voice heard in a referendum. Better to elect representatives who can be bribed and otherwise co-opted. The Trump phenomenon is a good example of how pent up frustration over how elected representatives have ignored the concerns of the people can erupt and ruin everyone's Georgetown cocktail parties. And so the next time the Republican party nominates a candidate for President things will be set up so that very little actual democracy is involved. (Come to think of it, it could still come off that way at the RNC.)

The United States was founded on the principle of a highly attenuated and modified democracy because of the fear that the founders had of pure democracy. Not only was it set up as a federal republic, but not everyone was allowed to vote. Only property owners for a long time were given the franchise. Only much later was that expanded. One can make the case that expanding the franchise has not been good for the country -- our economy and growth was a lot better back in the good old days. As a white male property owner I can attest to the fact that things are going my way less and less. And that, of course, is a bad thing.

But, alas, we couldn't keep the lid on it, and pretty soon renters, blacks and browns, and even (ugh!) women got the franchise. It looks like the elites are not at all happy about the outcome, though. Perhaps we will go to a system like North Korea, where elections are held on a regular basis but the outcomes are pre-determined. Sort of like the Democratic primaries.

What methodology, rule, or principle, is to guide anyone to the determination the decision to leave the EU is to be decided by elected representatives rather than the people?

Your argument assumes the decision to leave shouldn't be determined by the people. How do we know that to be true?
 
Back
Top Bottom