By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 23 December 2015
Edit Thread
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:

Democracy, so good people should be forced to partake in it. Yikes!

The whole point of the U.S system, which is a good point, is that there are some things the majority shouldn't be able to vote on. The minority's rights must be protected against mob rule. A pure democracy is dangerous for this reason. That is the why a representative legislature is necessary. They consider both the majority opinion and the protected minority rights when making laws. It is also why even on the local government level, when there were only a few hundred people, votes weren't tallied directly but rather through trusted representatives. 

 

Yeah, you're reading what I wrote and inferring that I suggest throwing out the constitution at the same time.  Inaccurate, and nothing I said suggests that.  Everything remains the same, including the Supreme Court which shoots down any attempt at a majority marginalizing and oppressing a minority.  As far as forcing people to be more active in the process, notice I said nothing about requiring people to vote, or making voting a part of citizenship, that's because I wasn't suggesting that.  I was merely suggesting the people take more responsibility for the Government, than closing their eyes and letting a few hundred people do so, when it's no longer necessary. For citizens to partake in the voting of legislation, it would automatically increase their understanding of things the Government is doing.  That's really all I meant.

But hey, it's cool you read what I wrote, assumed things I didn't say, and then formulated a response based on your own fears, that really helps push discussion forward.

So your post wasn't clear, ambigous, and the language was imprecise and I am seeing what I want to see? "It's also high time that the populace is actually forced to take a larger role in this country" has one very likely meaning and then various distorted meanings, of which you chose one. Maybe in the future use more precise and unambigous language and people wouldn't infer drastically different things. 

You are doing the same thing to me by the way. Since when did I show any thought that you believe the constitution should be thrown away. I raised concerns of checks and balances within the legislature and between the legislature and other branches of government being erroded with a direct democratic system. Are you proposing a 1:1 transfer of powers that congress has to the electorate, including the checks and balances? How exactly are the executive and legislature separated in your system, you alluded to the executive writing bills, which implies a merger of the legislative and executive branches. I would think there are many functional issues that make all of that unlikely without fundamentally changing what the intended goals of the system are. And that is without even considering dual federalism and the role of the states in the electoral process.