ANOTHER Political Quiz

Green Party 98%
Democrats 91%
Socialists 80%
Libertarians 56%
Republicans 21%

I, for one, have at least three opinions on every issue.

Yes.And a month later there would have been a vote to pull out. And the first time there was a hint of a terrorist threat there would have been a vote to go back in. And the first time one of our soldiers got shot there would have been a vote to pull out again. There wouldn't have been an effective war because the soldiers would have spent all their time packing and unpacking.

We have those experiments all the time. They're called "opinion polls". Is there any reason to believe that people's opinions would be less flighty if they mattered? At best, it would take a while for people to get used to the fact that they should think before they vote. Have you ever read legislation? We need people who can wrangle out the tiny details. That ain't us.

Politics is the art of arguing about what the consequences are. Who's going to decide what to teach the kids? So how are we going to vote on the budget? A yes or no for each of three hundred and eighty-seven clauses? The ballot would be twice the size of the budget.

You're equivocating relatively simple technical problems with philosophical questions that have no pat answers.We don't grow our own food or fix our own cars. We even hire advisors to handle our individual finances. Doesn't it make sense to hire specialists to handle our collective budget too?

Yeah, that's another problem with direct democracy. You'll get the cream of voters, the ones who are educated enough and informed enough to understand the detailed issues. Few enough people vote when the issue is low taxes versus good services. Fewer would vote if the issue was x dollars for A and y dollars for B versus z dollars for C and w dollars for D. It's a recipe for oligarchy.

As I said, they would become less interested as the level of detail increased. Only those who were interested in the details would participate. Ultimately, government would be by a small group of people, only they'd be people that we wouldn't get to choose. We've needed that for centuries. I'm not holding my breath.

No doubt. I'm suggesting that that would not be an improvement. Both. And because life is complicated. I suspect that simplifying bills in one place would only necessitate complicating them in other places.

I have no objection to the part I didn't object to. Sometimes you don't need to fly; we build aircraft for the times when you do need them.Whether Thoreau thought life "should" be simple and whether you agree with him are not particularly relevant. There are people who see complications (whether there are any or not) and there are people who like complications. The democratic system has to accomodate those people too.

We sometimes have politicians reminding us that they could make more money in private industry. My response is, "Please do."(I think politicians should get welfare. It might give them some incentive.)

I've considered that myself, but mostly as a science-fiction story. There is something to be said for continuity though. When everybody is the new kid on the block, who shows them the ropes?I like the U.S. system where 1/3 of the Senate is elected every two years. Maybe the lottery could use a staggered system like that.

The question isn't about being "allowed" to vote; it's about what we're allowed (or required) to vote for.Should we be allowed to vote on the weather? I'm going to propose a referendum on having winter every second year.

I'm not against you skiing. I just don't want to have to do it every time I leave the house.

And the answer, many posts back, was that most people don't want to participate in every niggling detail - just like most people don't want to change their own oil. You are. in fact, allowed to participate if you so choose by lobbying your representative on every detail. With direct democracy, only those who choose to participate in the details get a say; those who are less detail-oriented are effectively disenfranchised. That's a good example of how worthless argument by definition is. You'll have to be more specific. I am personally not "willing" to either kill or die for anything.