Is Our Representative Democracy Becoming Obsolete?
Will technology make our system "more direct?"
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
In the 18th century, The newly formed United States of America shaped our goverment and systems into thatof a representative democracy. This meant, since it was highly impractical to send every citizen to the nation's capitol to vote on every issue, each designated area would be able to elect an official who would represent and vote for the people of the district.
In 1791, It took several days to get from the most western town i the new nation to the capitol. The most western city at the time was Pittsburgh, Pa.
In the last 200+ years we have gone from that society that sent messages by horseback to a nation that can communicate all at the same time, in real time via the web. Does this technology, essentially, render our system obsolete?
Some could argue that some people shouldn't be given the vote. Their reasons can be varied, such as not being knowledgable enough on a subject or contending that a representative democracy is what the framers intended.
But the framershad no conception of a real time comunications tool that would enable direct democracy. Today, we are on the cusp of having that technology. We are probably not at a point of reliability and verification that we could trash our system today. But are we close enough that maybe we should begin considering a more directly democratic system?
Should we consider shrinking districts to better represent our population? For sure, our Presidential electoral system could be made much more "representative" by grouping people in smaller caucuses than statewide, as it stands now. Currently, the electoral system, at least , is unfair at best with some people's votes having 3 times less impact than other voters.
Should elected officials offer real time polling on at least the "important" votes for their voters? After all, the technology for at least this is available and could be added to every member of congress's website cheaply and easily.
It's time our goverment caught up a little bit with the technology available that could give "we, the people" the kind of say I believe our forefathers would have wanted.
In 1791, It took several days to get from the most western town i the new nation to the capitol. The most western city at the time was Pittsburgh, Pa.
In the last 200+ years we have gone from that society that sent messages by horseback to a nation that can communicate all at the same time, in real time via the web. Does this technology, essentially, render our system obsolete?
Some could argue that some people shouldn't be given the vote. Their reasons can be varied, such as not being knowledgable enough on a subject or contending that a representative democracy is what the framers intended.
But the framershad no conception of a real time comunications tool that would enable direct democracy. Today, we are on the cusp of having that technology. We are probably not at a point of reliability and verification that we could trash our system today. But are we close enough that maybe we should begin considering a more directly democratic system?
Should we consider shrinking districts to better represent our population? For sure, our Presidential electoral system could be made much more "representative" by grouping people in smaller caucuses than statewide, as it stands now. Currently, the electoral system, at least , is unfair at best with some people's votes having 3 times less impact than other voters.
Should elected officials offer real time polling on at least the "important" votes for their voters? After all, the technology for at least this is available and could be added to every member of congress's website cheaply and easily.
It's time our goverment caught up a little bit with the technology available that could give "we, the people" the kind of say I believe our forefathers would have wanted.
