By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WolfpackN64 on 02 June 2016
Edit Thread
snyps said:
WolfpackN64 said:

No, that's what I really think should happen. the USA isn't a democracy, it's a half democracy. People don't vote and chose the system, they vote for people in the government to elect the government.

If representative democracy wasn't already removed from the people enough, the USA makes the distance even larger.

Have you heard the quote 

 

“A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

 

 

When asked what system of government they had forged, Ben Franklin replied, "A Republic if you can keep it." Ideally, a proper democracy in a Republic is conducted by small groups consisting of a few hundred land owners electing their 7-8 delegates. Those delegates from each county make up a few hundred and they decide the party candidate. That is the right way to make the U.S. Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Conversely, a system were every person votes directly in a popular vote, irresponsible out number the responsible. The election gets decided by the ones that won't lift a finger to change a thing. The Democratic Party is so well trusted by it's supporters that it has given itself more voting power than it's individual members. The Superdelegate is not a thing in The Republican Party. In this converse system that we have today, the candidate, and thus the U.S. Government, is made; of the bank, by the bank, for the bank.

A Republic is the only right way to run a democracy. But we have lost it.

That's really a big bunch of hooey. You're defending a democratic deficit. The US should enter the 21st century, not be stuck with the basis of a system from the 18th.