Is Our Representative Democracy Becoming Obsolete?

First off,

Do away with the electoral college.

Secondly,

Get some freaking third parties out there. (more than just one!)

Greens, libertarians, facists, etc...

I don't care who it is, two parties don't work.


Finally....

In my opinion...

"We the people..." has become obsolete due to our apathy, due to our unwillingness to act. We sit by, and are placated. We don't do anything about what we feel is wrong. We are too wrapped up in proclaiming our freedom of speech, and exercizing it - that we don't do anything. It's "Blah blah blah!" No, "Do do do."

Ya understand what I mean? I hope so, maybe you don't....i have been off balance today.

"get some freaking third parties out there"

There are several.  They fail by and large not because of any institutional blockage keeping them from power, but from their own inability to market themselves as a viable alternative.  Often they're very narrow-focused groups that only care for a subset of the issues being discussed.  Like it or not, the Dems and Repubs do a better job at least paying lip service to what most people care about day-in-day-out.

A viable third party will emerge once one provides enough reason to those discouraged with the current parties to join.

There are several. They fail by and large not because of any institutional blockage keeping them from power, but from their own inability to market themselves as a viable alternative. Often they're very narrow-focused groups that only care for a subset of the issues being discussed. Like it or not, the Dems and Repubs do a better job at least paying lip service to what most people care about day-in-day-out.

It drives me up a wall. We call ourselves a democracy, a republic....but, we're not really. We're defined, chained, dictated by two parties. I know as sure as hell that I'm not defined by either, my beliefs place me in various spots.

I can buy all the tools to perform dentistry on my family. Technology has allowed this.  Should I do dentristy?

I like the system we have because our government is complex enough and the issues complex enough that I would prefer people who are spending their full time to be performing that work. If we are unhappy with the results, we vote in someone else.

I'd hate to see the direction the country took if we reached the point where people were directly voting on each bill. At that point, you might as well just hand over control to the media who would have even more influence on the way our government is run.

I like the system we have because our government is complex enough and the issues complex enough that I would prefer people who are spending their full time to be performing that work. If we are unhappy with the results, we vote in someone else.

Amen. The two-party system works in the essence that it doesn't. The fillibusters, etc. make it impossible for either party to encroach on the other, leaving us in a state of relative status quo. The minute either becomes too strong is when the system doesn't work.

Have you ever wondered why other "democracies" don't work as well as ours? Because they have too many parties. the two-party system is the most viable form of "democracy".

I can buy all the tools to perform dentistry on my family. Technology has allowed this. Should I do dentristy?

yes, but practicing dentistry requires a special license which requires an advanced degree. it is a skill that requires certain prerequisites.

i don't remember any special requirements other than citizenship and age to be a legislator, constitutionally speaking.

The U.S. Constitution specifies only (in Article I, section 2) that No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

there is no specific knowledge required for the representative.

now i am not saying that we should directly vote on every issue necessarily. i am throwing thequestion out for debate. does our democracy stand for an 'overhaul?" where we can adapt to the world we live in today, one that is much more specialized than in 1791? is it adequate to have a guy in charge of the internet in congress who thinks of it as a "bunch of tubes?" and a lack of expertise in comittee chairmen like that is more common than we would like to think.

should our democratic principles be expanded? and if so, how? if not, why?

"I'd hate to see the direction the country took if we reached the point where people were directly voting on each bill. At that point, you might as well just hand over control to the media who would have even more influence on the way our government is run."

I agree with this a lot, that would be very dangerous as well. The media has its teeth into government enough, especially cable news networks. I think if a society like south korea got into doing this though since they are so tech and computer connected, and it worked, it would be an interesting expriement.

"There are several. They fail by and large not because of any institutional blockage keeping them from power, but from their own inability to market themselves as a viable alternative."

They fail a lot because they can't get on the ballot, they aren't allowed to debate on equal footing with the D and R, and they aren't treated seriously. Additionally they don't have the financial backing because the D and R's control soooo many more grassroots and lobbyist contributions that they are able to out promote and outlast any serious opposition.

This is why the general public is apathetic to voting, and why there isn't really too many differences between the parties. You don't have to be a D or R to be willing to say/do whatever it takes to get elected. Very few independent candidates ever make it up to the level of the D and R candidate and in order to do so they have to have a s**t ton of money. Locally maybe it's a different story but as you get higher up, where you need more and more people to know about you, and your campaign, sleeker advertising, ever wonder why candidates do the targeting of particular demographics, because its efficiency, targeting the greatest number of likely voters hedging and rubbing the numbers.

In the future of this system, there probably won't be huge margins of victory between candidates of the D and R, but there sure is a huge descrepancy between them and any 3rd party or 4th party. Kinda sad really, because neither party cares for jack, about the average american, or the country, only on holding the majority of votes and power. Individual members, they care about gettin elected/re-elected first and foremost on the whole, career politicians care about that more then anyone else. LOL. Occassionally there'll be a candidate or elected politican that does care but they'll be replaced unfortunately by the ruthless crook that is better at screwing people in favor of other vote/contribution getters. Geez that sounds apathetic. Sum it up for ya?

It would be interesting if the government would tax campaign contributions and give an equal footing to the opposition candidacies, so that D's and R's aren't unfairly given a huge advantage, ahhhhh but there's a snowballz chance in hell of ever seeing that in this reality, notice there is no rush to do this, because both th D's and R's are in power and will work together more often then not to prevent something fair from ever happening to challenge their power grip over the political system. 3rd party candidates at the national level, bah, probably not for a while.

It isn't that 3rd party ideas aren't as good or superior to the stats quo, hell they are probably superior, what party if not for D's and R's would argue that we stick with the constant bickering between them and daily accusations/coverups, kickbacks, lobbying on taxpayer dollars, corruption, lack of efficient government vs, a minimalist governement that is efficient, doesn't intrude into our lives as much, and works with state goverments rather then just spends the majority of the time pointing fingers rather then working to get things done.

If such a part existed, and you can believe it isn't the D's or R's they'd be put out of business because the D's and R's would both be telling you and me that they couldn't be trusted. I tend to believe that the guys in charge have done a pretty s****y job, why am I not running?

What's the point? Apathetic, and pathetic, it is both.

Actually a straight democracy is a bad idea in general. It sounds good until you consider that every individual is subject to the whim of the majority.

Suppose someone decided that all Christians should be executed. Suppose they had the political will to muster a majority. Then Christians would have no choice but to disobey the law, flee the country, or report to the gallows. While the example seems extreme, substitute the word "Christians" for "gays", "abortion doctors", "Muslims", or "drug dealers", and the idea of a majority voting for such a law seems less and less farfetched.

There must be safeguards for the rights of minorities, as long as those minorities do not infringe on the rights of others. Representative democracy, while imperfect, still is preferable to the mob rule that a direct democracy could quickly become.

Although we find ourselves yet again on opposing sides, Sean, I do thank you for asking the question.

Your idea is flawed from the start.  Ok, so we all get to vote on the bills that our representatives vote on now.  In your concept of government, who would write the bills?  Who would do all the research that goes on in writing the bill?  Who would be responsible for posting all the information gained from the research?

If all our Senators and Housemembers did was show up to vote, then your idea would be a pretty good one, but voting is only 1 part of their job.

At a time when 40% voter turnout is considered "high", I doubt the nation would want to be politically active enough to do it ourselves.

~~~~~

Zoomba:

There are several.  They fail by and large not because of any institutional blockage keeping them from power, but from their own inability to market themselves as a viable alternative.

This is only partly true.  Last presidential election, the candidates for the Libertarian and Green parties were arrested when they showed up to participate in the so-called "presidential debate".  I'm not sure about the candidate for the Green Party, but the LP candidate was on almost every state's ballot.

I ask you, if either the Republican or Democrat candidates were arrested, it would cause a firestorm of press.  The arrest of two other candidates generated NONE.  We hear a lot of accusations about supressing voter turnout, yet when it is both the Republicans and Democrats supressing the 3rd party vote, nobody seems to care.

Our system does need to be fixed, but most of those fixes should be GOING BACK to how the framers intended, not trying to mess with it more.  For one thing, the Senate needs to be returned to the States where it belongs. 

The Electoral College shouldn't be abolished, but realigning the representation would probably be a good idea.

In 2004, almost as many people voted in American Idol than who voted for Gorge Bush. Not only that, but people, in general, are stupid. This is not the ideal environment for direct democracy.

Something I've been wanting to be able to do for a while now is to retract my support for the candidate I voted for when he/she starts to adhere to the party line or against the party line, in general: when they start voting in a different way than I would expect them to do. I mean, that's allright if the different point of view happens to coincide with mine, but when it doesn't I feel I should be able to show I do not agree.

Anyway, I think there's room for improvement between keeping the system as it is and allowing everyone to vote on each issue for themselves.

ok,,,1st off. i am NOT concluding that we should instantly give everyone the vote on every single bill and issue. so please stop telling me i am wrong in so many words...i am merely asking the questions. to rephrase, what i want to know, from this "tech savvy" group, is does our democracy need ANY technology to be added to our system to make it more "of, for and by the people?" i do believe that yes, there are technologies that could help our system of government. some of these technologies present new challenges. some of those challenges are logistical or have to do with verification and fairness. some have to do with laws not even addressing certain things.

for example, we have gone to electronic, computerized voting. this voting presents issues our forefathers never envisioned or conceived. do we need to clarify new standards and practices when dealing with them vs a paper ballot?

to give a what if outside the realm of what i mentioned in the orig. article.......what if power was out for an entire day, or a good portion of it. or say a computer's memory was wiped clean, either on purpose or by accident....most states election laws call for the election to be held on a specific tuesday of the month and year. and for the votes to be counted by certain dates. should judges go outside current laws and make reasonable judgements to reschedule the election or extend the counting period? should legislators change the existing laws? is it "tough luck?"

This is only partly true. Last presidential election, the candidates for the Libertarian and Green parties were arrested when they showed up to participate in the so-called "presidential debate". I'm not sure about the candidate for the Green Party, but the LP candidate was on almost every state's ballot

but everyone knows the presidential debates are the biggest publicity events in the election. and our debate system stinks on ice. it is designed to supress the 3rd parties. the "commission on presidential debates" or whatever tehy are calling themselves these days is really a thinly veiled corporation. it's not a non partisan, wanting to be fair, "commission" as their name would suggest. every 4 years they shut out the 3rd party candidates by arbitrarily setting a "bar" that they know the 3rd parties won' hit. and of course, the major parties, not wanting any of their vote to be splintered off, stay mute on the issue.

The Electoral College shouldn't be abolished, but realigning the representation would probably be a good idea

yes indeed. and i'm not so sure that breaking it down by states is a good idea. especially concerning larger states where opinions can be widely varied. take california for example, where the north is much more democratic leaning than the conservative south. but every 4 years millions of californians have their presidential vote essentially muted by the electoral college's obligation to cast all the ballots for one candidate.

what was practical in 1791 is overly simplistic and almost silly in 2006. how could it be improved?


Although we find ourselves yet again on opposing sides, Sean, I do thank you for asking the question.

again,,,we're not on opposing sides...most of that article is asking questions to start a dialog. your participation puts us on the same side (along with everyone else responding) of those who care enough to ask questions and examine issues.

thanks everyone for your responses so far...interesting comments and much food for thought.

does our democracy need ANY technology to be added to our system

I think there is too much technology in our system.  It's ironic that, with all of our technological advances, a simple X on piece of paper is still the best way to vote.

I think there is too much technology in our system. It's ironic that, with all of our technological advances, a simple X on piece of paper is still the best way to vote.

interesting ted...and there is something to say for doing it "old school." but what about day to day legislating? our congress can and sometimes does vote "electronically." yet it is not required on all votes. should it be? it seems the only reason to go "voice vote" with ayes and nays is to cover accountability. shold legislators be still required to "be in the hall" when their vote can be equally and as effectively recorded from anywhere in the world?

I like the states that award the electoral votes according to the district.

Should legislators be still required to "be in the hall" when their vote can be equally and as effectively recorded from anywhere in the world?

Yes. It's their job to be there. As a software developer, I could work from home, but I'm more effective in working with other people when I'm in the office.

Yes. It's their job to be there. As a software developer, I could work from home, but I'm more effective in working with other people when I'm in the office.

i am not talking about doing work from home, just casting a vote if the senator was not in the hall. in 1791, it wasn' t very possible. today it is. this would make "gettin out of town (or at least the hall) to avoid a tough vote" a moot point. it would force legislators to have an accountable vote regardless of their location.

I like the states that award the electoral votes according to the district.

which states do this? i was under the impression that all states are required to give all their votes to one candidate.

sidenote question:

do you think the district of columbia should have it's own senators? by not having senators, are they essentially under the "taxation without representation" banner that was a war cry to our forefathers?

which states do this? i was under the impression that all states are required to give all their votes to one candidate.

There is no requirement - states are granted the constitutional right to select their electors however they desire. From there, for a state to enact a proportional voting system means surrendering power. By splitting electoral votes a state loses influence in the Electoral College.


I believe the last state to split electoral votes was Michigan in 1892.

TheThe elected are only as good as the electorate. As long as we allow for the lowest common denominator that is what we will get.

Sean:

it seems the only reason to go "voice vote" with ayes and nays is to cover accountability. shold legislators be still required to "be in the hall" when their vote can be equally and as effectively recorded from anywhere in the world?

Yes, I do think they should have to be on the floor to vote.  Not only that, but there should be substantial fines for not being there.  I can't think of any job where you "I was somewhere else at the time" is  legitimate argument for not doing your job.

"Oh, I'm sorry Mr and Mrs. Patient's loved ones.  I know I was supposed to be at your loved ones home after I accepted the call from the dispatcher, but I was somewhere else at the time.  I trust the funeral was a beautiful one." ~ Joe Paramedic

~~~~~

As for the aportioning of electoral votes, the only way to make a uniform policy would be through constitutional amendment.  short of that, each state is free do decide.  However, Curious is right, any state that splits their electoral votes loses influence in the election.

The misunderstood fact is, we don't have a National Election in the USA, we have 50 state elections.  Until that is better understood, most Americans won't understand why the Constitution is written the way it is.

 

 

 

 

I like the system we have because our government is complex enough and the issues complex enough that I would prefer people who are spending their full time to be performing that work.

The trouble arises when said people *don't* spend full-time actually doing their job, but rather campaigning and meeting with big donors/lobbyists. And even when they're in the building, it seems few of them actually read bills anymore, even when they [read: their staffers and donors] wrote the things. They just rubberstamp things based on profitability and political expediency, and move along to the next one... Gotta wonder how things would change if we implemented a universal one-term limit on all offices...

"This is only partly true. Last presidential election, the candidates for the Libertarian and Green parties were arrested when they showed up to participate in the so-called "presidential debate". I'm not sure about the candidate for the Green Party, but the LP candidate was on almost every state's ballot."

...on almost every state's ballot, sounds fair for voting purposes, NOT!

"I ask you, if either the Republican or Democrat candidates were arrested, it would cause a firestorm of press."

No shit.

"We hear a lot of accusations about supressing voter turnout, yet when it is both the Republicans and Democrats supressing the 3rd party vote, nobody seems to care."

I care, and I pointed out in my response that the system is bi-cameral and will probably be so until major changes occur, as for suppressing the vote, most of those claims have proven to be bogus from previous elections.

"Our system does need to be fixed, but most of those fixes should be GOING BACK to how the framers intended, not trying to mess with it more. For one thing, the Senate needs to be returned to the States where it belongs. "

Whats wrong with the senate?

"In 2004, almost as many people voted in American Idol than who voted for Gorge Bush."

That's false check into it.

"Not only that, but people, in general, are stupid. This is not the ideal environment for direct democracy."

In your opinion people are stupid, I reject that, "most people are stupid", in general the American public is better educated about the issues and candidates then any group of people in the history of the world about their elected leaders. At least in perception. The media spends more money now then ever before, and there are various outlets, not the least of which is cable news, which runs 24/7 and talks about politics daily, as well as the weath of information on the internet which is available in nearly every home in the country. Political satire shows also cater to a demographic turned off by the boring and straighforward discussion and information relays on the major news networks, so everybody who wants to know and some of those who don't know about the issues and candidates.


"what i want to know, from this "tech savvy" group, is does our democracy need ANY technology to be added to our system to make it more "of, for and by the people?" i do believe that yes, there are technologies that could help our system of government"

The only problem with this is technology costs money, and doesn't add anything to the process of voting. Pen and paper is all you need, Ballots using punchcards and well you were there for the Florida voting scandal, learning about how votes can be wasted because of the particular ways in which they are done. The kiss principal in voting is bliss, it's also as secure or more secure then turning it over to technology which can be hacked, corrupted, or the data lost, without any provisions to make it better/more fair I say to hell with that stick with what works.

"I think there is too much technology in our system. It's ironic that, with all of our technological advances, a simple X on piece of paper is still the best way to vote."

Agree, if anything, there should be pieces of paper with mutiple languages until they either pass a law that states that English is the official language of The United States, or they pass a law that says all languages are allowed. Spanish language ballots are a necessary reality for lots of voters.

"The trouble arises when said people *don't* spend full-time actually doing their job, but rather campaigning and meeting with big donors/lobbyists. And even when they're in the building, it seems few of them actually read bills anymore, even when they [read: their staffers and donors] wrote the things. They just rubberstamp things based on profitability and political expediency, and move along to the next one... Gotta wonder how things would change if we implemented a universal one-term limit on all offices..."

I think it would make our government much leaner and more efficient, and better able to find the money to the problems rather then to the people in power. But since people are in power lol, that'll never happen. Our government has to go the way of other institutions if it is to survive, manufacturing, medical, to a lean environment.

"Our system does need to be fixed, but most of those fixes should be GOING BACK to how the framers intended, not trying to mess with it more. For one thing, the Senate needs to be returned to the States where it belongs. " Whats wrong with the senate?

The Senate is the voice of each state at the federal level, not the people in the states. In a show of full scale ignorance, the 17th Amendment silenced the voice of the State and gave it to the people. This threw off the balance of power between the Senate and House.

There is NO reason for Senators to be chosen by We the People when they are supposed to represent the interests of the several states.

interesting comments so far, thanks!