A true democracy requires an aware and educated citizenry. Since more US citizens are knowledgable about the Three Stooges and the Seven Dwarfs than who is in the Supreme Court and Congress and an overwhelming number think the universe was created 6000 years ago I would feel very uneasy in placing the nation in the hands of such idiots. Granted the current government is not a hell of a lot better, it is, to my mind, somewhat superior.

I got to agree with Sand on this one. I do believe that representation is important and sometimes things don't go your way but turning decisions over to the masses could spark big problems. Suppose that some drug company wanted a vote to go a certain way and in return they would try to sway voters with prizes, rebates or cold hard cash. Many would go for the reward regardless of the real facts behind the issue. Kick backs are abound, no doubt, but at least there are some checks and balances in place to monitor who is being good and who is being bad.

I agree completely with the previous comments. Also, I would like to add that all political systems are unethical to some degree, as they are all based on the principle that somebody (or bodies) rules everyone else. Political systems are defined by who rules. Democracy is defined as rule by the majority of the voters. If the majority of the voters consistantly voted in the best interest of the nation and man-kind, then this would be fine, but they don't. People will inevitably vote in their own self-interest. In a true democracy, the majority will always oppress a minority simply because they can benefit themselves that way.

I think that you don't give enough credit for the general populace, my view is somewhat limited though as I reside in the UK.

However...

The majority of people I know, (in fact everyone I know), possess ample knowledge with regards to their environment and government to contribute effectively in a true democratic system. Everyone could, without question, cast a vote with sufficiant insight unto it's implications if we where ever to have a chance. I really cannot, infact fundamentally refuse to believe that the U.S could differ so much...

Furthermore, those whom lack knowledge, from my experience, are far from interested in politics and simply would not vote.

I'm sure there is much research on the matter, albeit possibly tainted,(me being the one for conspiracies), which may make the point more effectively.

A system which I would personally prefer, (I'm not sure if ithas a name as I have not studied politics to any great extent), I will explain now...

Everyone in the entire country is free to run for leadership, allbeit governed by a mass of underdogs. The country is broken up into sets of say 20 individuals not demographically orientated. Every individual has access to a secure web space they can promote themselves on. That group of 20 then have to vote amongst them on a representitive for their group. That rep then is designated to a further group of 20 representatives, whom in turn vote amongst themselves for the leader of the pack (pardon expression), this process is continued until a hierarchy forms and a leader is born. All representitives are able to vote throughout the process, (on the other winning representitives ofcourse) and the final vote the entire population can vote on.

Now I'm missing a lot I know, but the essence of the idea is a fair voting system where only those whom put enough research and effort into the system will have the ability to vote through most of the process.

Can't wait for the flames ;o)

I think we have a good enough government. As a matter of fact, I think all governments are good. The fact is, a good government always depends on who is in the saddle. If you have someone or people that are there for their own self-interests, then you have a bad government, if you have someone or people that are there for the best interest of the people then you have good government. The very notion of government means it is flawed, so no matter what government you have it will be never be perfect. If everything is perfect, you don't need government, ergo, the perfect situation would be a society that doesn't need government. Since they are all flawed, all you can do is pray and do your part.

I love being able to use this quote:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." -Thomas Paine

The system we have isn't great, but it's certainly more manageable than true democracy. Perhaps if we had more levels of government so that one person is speaking for hundreds instead of hundreds of thousands, the people could be more accurately represented. Controlled bureaucracy anyone?

I should be in charge of everything, then there would be no world problems, no one would ever die, people would be rich and merry and sing songs what a wonderfull leader they have...

As pre-stated by dugan and wonder, the government works. It could do with a touch up in places though (like going to war when 93% of the population are against it, few laws, dab of paint here and ther, that sort of thing!).

If a new subsection of government was born, with 100,000+ members and with a good amount of say in what goes on, I think things would become more democratic.

wswonder, you wrote that if leaders are there for their own self-interest, then you have a bad government. Unfortunately, leaders are there for their own self-interest more often than not. Selfish, ruthless people tend to rise to power. Selfish and ruthless people have the advantage that they will do whatever it takes to achieve their goals, including lying and murdering. That's why so many countries wind up being led by warlords and despots. Voting for leaders is intended to reduce this problem, and it probably does, but it doesn't elliminate it. It's a cliche that politicians alway lie, and unfortunately it's true far too often.

You also wrote that if leaders are there for the best interest of the people, then you have good government. Unfortunately, even when the leadership has the best intentions, you can still have bad government if they are incompetent, which is common.

I have been thinking this for several years. I resent the people who are supposed to represent the constituency which elected them, but only vote along partisan lines instead. Obviously, we need bodies in Washington to do the work, but the offices of each Senator & each Representative could become a "town meeting" situation where the issues are presented and feedback is given electronically to the office staff - which then coordinates the will of the people.

This would come a lot closer to the ideal of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Certainly a lot closer to the ideal than their voting as the party machinery, the highly paid lobbyists, and millionaire contributors want them to vote.

What you are really proposing is a directly-elected Republic. That can only be a good thing, although as it stands, it seems like it'd meet tons of stiff opposition not only from the varied individual States, but the various companies and corporations which rely upon the current system from vote tabulation and statistics, as well as the political parties themselves, which would have to dramatically switch campaigning strategies. These reasons have been stated much better by everyone else.

But hey, the horse and buggy is gone, and a direct vote It is something we should focus on making work. Saying that too many people are uneducated is hardly a good enough reason for losing hope for a representative government like ours... it doesn't take a genius, or even a moderately intelligent person, to decide who to vote for... although maybe it takes a smart person to vote like you do (because we all want to believe we vote intelligently, after all). It doesn't require statesmanship or political knowhow to vote well, but it does require the system to be a bit more transparent than it is now, and reforming the electoral process could only by a positive start in that direction.

Sure, anyone would like an informed populace, but if people are given more involvement in government, and are given a more honest view as to how it works, it can only lead to an increased interest and active involvement. A direct vote, while having drastic impacts on some procedures by which our government operates, would not alter the manner in which it governs in a significant way.

Giving people a bit more openess, honesty, and responsibility is a step of trust that any government should give it's people when it comes to elections. Any society which expects it's citizens to step up and be accountable in its elective process, should expect the government to make an equal step forward by the same token. No person wants to take part in a representative system which poorly reflects their choices. Part of this problem is due to the size of our nation, another part is that it takes some skill nowadays to follow and see the effects of our voting habits, and yet another is that our vote gets mentally "lost" along the way, added to some statistical pool where we can never find it again. A direct vote, where it goes to the person you are voting for, can solve that latter problem, although it'd be an uphill battle.

But I still have to disagree with a true DEMOCRACY, which literally is government BY the people... namely, what Greek democracy more accurately represented in its early stages: conscription into service of the state in matters of politics. The problem with it is still the same as in Grecian times: you can hardly order a farmer to let his field lie fallow while he goes off to serve the greater good and the state. It'd ruin his livelihood. Thats why we have people whose job it is to be statesmen, like it or not. There will always be that conflict of interest between the job and the ideal, because sadly enough, being a leader and a stateman is something that you can't just casually do as a hobby.

Maybe changing THAT principle, making that path a less extreme "politician or not" distinction, and allowing degrees of direct government partificpation, would be a good supplement to a direct vote.

True Democracy: Three wolves & one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

The elected people are supposed to have time to do the research & know a lot more than people with full time jobs. We are supposed to find educated, bright, honest people to lead us.

If I cannot do that... do you really want me trying to figure out your tax rate?

Our founders allowed only white, male, land owners to vote. They figured anybody else was too ignorant to understand the issues. Today it would not be acceptable or desirable to automatically disenfranchise women, blacks, and indentured servants.

I propose that henceforth only persons capable of understanding the issues, by written test, should be allowed to vote. This would (hopefully) encourage people to spend more time reading and thinking, and less time watching sitcoms and meathead sports on the tube.

I too agree that America should move towards a true democracy. It seems that many, perhaps most people have become completely disenfranchised with the current political system, with responses ranging from apathy to disgust. Only 61.7 to 63% of total eligible voters voted in the last presidential election (131.2 million people voted whereas the estimates of total eligible voters range from approx. 208 million to approx. 212 Million.) Enabling people to vote on the issues directly would change people's entire relationship to their city, state, and country.

I'm not speaking of abolishing the entire system that we have. Of course we need a justice system, as well as the elected representatives to actually carry out what the public would request. In regards to electing officials, extensive campaigning could be prohibited. Think of how many programs could be supported with the $730 Million that was spent on the campaign expenditures of "Brand Obama" or the $333 Million for McCain. Perhaps a single video of the candidate speaking of their competence and background, with an imposed limit on rhetoric, would be sufficient. If officials were not carrying out their duties and following the will of the people, they could be quickly and efficiently disposed, and new officials would be voted on to take their place. There are many competent people who want to serve their country that are not given a chance because they do not have corporate or media support and sponsorship from a party.

The system I have in mind would be one where every vote is equal, no matter how wealthy or educated you are, or how many friends or corporate sponsors you have. There would be separate categories and voting sessions taking place every month, for your city, state, and then the entire country, and the issues that relate to each. Everyone and anyone could submit an idea/issue to be voted on; no idea or issue would be too insignificant or important.

The ideas/issues to be voted on would then be collected on a website a month or two in advance of voting. Under the heading of each succinct and clearly stated issue would be a list of relevant sources and background material to educate and inform about any and all aspects related to the issue. Here would be links to articles from newspapers and magazines, charts, graphs, memorandums, reports, statistics, videos, etc., a list that could be constantly expanded. Opinion pieces would only be allowed to be posted here if originally published in a major newspaper. Of course, there would also be a comments section where everyone would be able to unconditionally contribute their own thoughts, opinions.

The team of people who managed the website would shift through the links to group them into tentative categories of support or opposition or neutrality.

No, not everyone would read every article, but I do believe that many people would, again realizing that every vote would count. Can you imagine realizing that your vote could actually be the difference of whether the U.S. went to war with Afghanistan?

What I do wonder is in reference to something sand said about the unaware and uneducated citizenry. If every single person in the country eligible to vote voted on the issue of health care (and every vote was equal, from a minimum wage factory worker to the President), what would the outcome be? I think that Americans would clearly voice what they want and the outcome would be reasonable and fair (in this case, a single-payer public health plan easily available to everyone). Even on perhaps more controversial issues like abortion or war, with available access to knowledge and information through the proposed website, I wonder what the true majority of Americans would want.

Depending on the nature of the issue, a month or 2, 3, 6, or 9 after a vote a review and poll would be taken to see whether people were happy with the result. Again depending on the issue, after a time period, people would be able to appeal the vote, offering alternatives or amendments, to be then voted on. There could be a maximum on times an issue could be appealed.

These are just ideas but I truly feel that something simple and effective could be worked out so that true democracy could exist, and I don't believe that chaos would result. Voting on issues is essential, rather than on a person or party that usually reneges, changes or fails in its promises, or is simply ineffective.

I should have added at the end of the previous post a reference to the monumental atrocities that most administrations have committed, in most cases in direct opposition to what the public wanted.