ANOTHER Political Quiz

Who has time for that? ( )The whole argument can be made this way. Democracy is the best form of government that we have found and therefore more democracy is better than less democracy.

Nonsense. The issues can be refined. I suggest that the mechanisms for doing so would spontaneously arise. Consolidators and evaluators would show up in no time to offer their professional opinions about the matter at hand. So if a budget issue comes up then the voter could go to the sources that they choose to trust and make their decisions.How informed are our representatives now on the issues that they vote on? Isn't it mostly a case of voting the party line? How many members of congress actually read the patriot act before voting for it?

Here is a summary of all ballot initiatives that that took place in 2012. (A good resource for anyone interested.)While I have not reviewed them all I didn't see anything there that was cause for concern even though I didn't agree with all of the outcomes. I wonder if anyone can point to some sign of mob rule or irrational behaviour. Remember that all of the results are subject to examination by the courts after their passage. I completely agree that there needs to be time for cool reflection and that a bureaucracy ensures that at least some of that happens but I think that you are again conflating DD with mob rule. I don't see why DD would speed anything up very much.Why is it better to elect a representative to vote on issues that they know little about as opposed to voting on the issues ourselves? Leaving aside the issue of process and how we could do it, what is theoretically wrong with working toward a more direct appeal to the people? The only objection I have seen so far is one of fear.

I am not sure what the benefit to that would be. As it is now if the rep doesn't measure up then they do not get reelected. Why the separation between the vote and the people?In theory, the people are the highest authority. Historically, representatives solved the practical problem of actually being available to vote on issues. As technology begins to be able to solve this problem I don't see why we don't employ it. Doing away with rep dem should eliminate any chance of misrepresentation. I think that it would also reduce the opportunity for corruption.It is like the opposition comes from the idea that democracy is ok for me but not for everyone. Doesn't that seem a little hypocritical?

How about constituents inform their reps, by some secure method, which way they want them to vote on a particular issue. If the number of voters participating crosses a threshold then the rep is obligated to vote that way. If not then the rep can vote as they wish.The rep could have the ability to vote against the wishes of his constituents even if the threshold is passed but would then have to defend that action. Perhaps limit this ability to a certain number of occasions or make it painful in some way. Maybe dock them 20% of their income for every divergent vote.I think that if we want people to participate then we have to set it up so that their vote makes a real difference as opposed to the lip service that we get now.

Of course not that would be hypocritical.How many here think that they themselves should not be allowed to vote? While Omnivoruous is terrified of DD I am sure that he doesn't think that we should be terrified of him voting.

Same difference. My question was; when there is a vote why shouldn't the people affected be allowed to participate? Representative democracy is neither representative nor democratic.When I read the Wiki definition it says "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally..." That is what I think of when I think democracy. Of course nothing like that exists in the world today.What I am trying to flesh out is why we are willing to kill and die for a concept that we do not actually believe in and are in fact afraid of. I am really curious about the basis of that fear. The next time there is a vote on the weather we should all be allowed to participate. What about the climate? Should we be allowed to vote on that or should we rely on our reps who are dining with the oil company lobbyists?Edited by ProtoTypical, : title

That is a red herring. There is no need to participate any more than you want to. Most people don't want to vote at all. Would you take that fact as a justification for prohibiting everyone from voting? What? That makes no sense. So that makes you a communist/fascist/pacifist now eh?Labels aside you can rest assured that your representatives are certainly willing to kill on your behalf and if you weren't such an old fart they wouldn't hesitate to send you up to the front lines.

Hmmm. And then you go on to tell us how you don't want the people of Tennessee making some retarded decision. I don't see why this should change although I can see a potential increase in knowledge as people engage the issues. Especially when you start preparing them from childhood for their civic duties.Why do you assume that we would not be able or willing to consult the experts? Also, I see it as a voluntary thing so if you don't want to vote or feel unqualified to have an opinion then you don't vote. I agree. So then don't vote on those issues. If it is a municipal issue outside of your municipality then you wouldn't have a vote anyway. The advantage is that if the issue did concern you then you would have a say that was actually counted. Why should you have to quit your day job to cast a vote on something so obvious as taking all the water before it gets to Georgia? So the vote is "Should we take all the water from the Gitchagoomee river before them Georgians get it?" Your answer is no. How long did that take? Eleven seconds?Again, set aside the question of 'how' we could do it and consider the question 'if' we should even try. In theory, in a society where all citizens are equal, shouldn't everyone have an equal say regarding issues that affect them?