A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simple cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.

Some recent polling data from the American populace:

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism


Given the information in the above poll, where would you put America right now on the Cycle of Nations:

Bondage -> Spiritual Faith -> Great Courage -> Liberty -> Abundance -> Selfishness -> Complacency -> Apathy -> Moral Decay -> Dependence -> Bondage

Stickied.

You know, very few of us seem to demonstrate any awareness of distinctions within the concept "democracy" and use the term loosely, as if REPRESENTATIVE democracy was the only legitimate form - kind of like Christians who leave off the qualifier "orthodox" when they describe their belief system and thus disenfranchise all the Gnostic Christians whose claim to legitimate Christian belief is no less valid for not indulging the orthodox creedal formulae imposed on "the Church" during the fall of the Roman Empire.

Thoughtless use of the term DEMOCRACY, similarly casts anyone who doesn't believe in Representative Democracy as a member of a dangerous minority "lunatic" fringe and in my opinion does great disservice to the sustainable future of humanity as a whole. The primary democratic alternative - DIRECT DEMOCRACY, could not be logistically implemented in ye merry old England due to obvious communication constraints and limitations around the time of Magna Carta . . i.e. the speed limit of the carrier pidgeon and unacceptable data loss due to harrier hawks and falcons.

I hope this perspective renders representative democracy as something of a poor alternative "stop gap" measure in comparison with a purer, more direct "Athenian" form of democracy developed 500BCE by Clisthenes.

Today, of course, due entirely to the technology that gives rise to this forum, direct democracy is again distinctly possible to implement. It is my considered opinion, based upon Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs, that the movement towards more direct individual involvement in the governing decisionmaking process is INEVITABLE. After all - as individuals in the Westminster Parliamentary System and the U.S. Congressional system, we all remain one step removed from "Self Actualisation" - the self empowerment Maslow suggests we are all seeking. In a representative system we elect MPs to not only make our decisions for us but to decide what questions will be asked and answered. It is an adversarial system with two main protagonists and almost without exception we are dissatisfied with the black and white choices and ideologically driven results it generates.

With thousands of spare channels on digital television, 3G communications and rapidly increasing levels of education and sophistication among our young "future leaders" - the question is not IF direct democracy, it is WHEN. Let's ensure some brainstorming of constitutional alternatives before the inevitable happens so we can get QUALITY constitutional outcomes instead of something designed by the present politicians that permits them to retain as much of their current POWER as possible.

keir

Originally Posted by duggojnr

Let's ensure some brainstorming of constitutional alternatives before the inevitable happens so we can get QUALITY constitutional outcomes instead of something designed by the present politicians that permits them to retain as much of their current POWER as possible.

keir

Senate and House term limits would be a simple first step. These "Career" senators like McCain and Kennedy are part of the problem. Anyone who gets voted out becomes a lobbyist. Logistics are not the only problem with Direct Democracy. Our representatives have government security clearances and are briefed on all manor of issues of national security, giving the people a chance to speak before other branches of government take action that could later be complained about. How do you plan to eliminate representation and accomplish the same thing? We certainly cant throw many of these issues up for public vote on the internet.

Secondly, regarding the logistics, we have so many complaints about voting systems as they exist in their various formats right now, I can imagine that any "bullet proof" method of correctly identifiying every citizen with a right to vote would probably be meet endless challenges in court on grounds of invasion of privacy. Just a thought.

the problem with some politic systems is the invasion of privacy, like you say. I m thinking in southamerican countries. I prefer democracy, traditional democracy.