In theory, having representatives might seem like it would simplify things, but I was speaking more in terms of letting the popular vote be the driving force instead of an electoral college.Rebis wrote:I never mentioned economy. I was just outlining a process whereby the definition of a democracy in the US would be more in-line with Yaya's interpretation.Optimus Prime Rib wrote:You think the economy is borked now?Rebis wrote:Could you imagine a United States where governmental power is devolved to state level, where each individual state is represented at an international level and matters of state are resolved by referendum?
Now, could you imagine it ever coming to pass?
No? Neither could I.
As BB Shockwave said, a true democracy would be totally ineffective for national-level government, due to the vast number of participants in any decision-making process, which is why there are multiple layers of government where each layer's members are elected as representatives of (usually geographic) divisions of the immediately lower layer.
How much more pure in terms of democracy can you get than a popular vote? That really is by the people, for the people.
In the end, you still need watchdogs to oversee that there isn't any funny business going on, no matter what kind of democracy you have. And I just don't think we have enough regulation in goverment (we sure as hell have enough of it in medicine, speaking from personal experience. Why not governement?).