Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
The people as a whole still have freedom and the right to exercise their will but a true democracy can not be had without the absence of money bearing external forces, presence of a leveled playing field and low barrier to entry for candidate and informed citizenry.
This country and its people lack sufficient altruism required for a true democracy.
|
True democracy is just as dangerous, and stupid of a style of govt as any other out there. Because 50.1% of a given population support an idea, doesn't mean that idea is a good one, only that 50.1% of the population agree to do something.
The US's strength, for whatever it's worth, wasn't ever in the democratic aspect, but in the multilayered check's and balances that were put in place to prevent harm and provide a government that was: stable enough to withstand foreign influences on domestic affairs, limited in scope and power enough to allow individual freedoms, secure enough to take on debt and repay debt to enable foreign trade. As the US marches toward truer and truer democracy (defined as one person one vote on every issue) we lose many of the less obvious checks and balances the founders put there.
My personal belief is that the moving of Senate seats from state decision to democratic forces is one of the most undermining of all the constitutional amendments. I actually understand at the time it was necessary but it seems like States need to reclaim that privilege and bring back a form of State assignment of Senate seats. My rationale in a simplistic statement is this: the big money contributors that currently fund national campaigns would be forced to bring campaigns back to individual state situations. It really would be best if there could be a 2 step process of State appointment followed by voter approval, that would work to reduce backroom politics and encourage Senators who are working for their State and not for the vested national lobbiests.