America should be turned into a democracy

[Truth Warrior]

Okay?

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx

 

[Misesian]

I've already seen a number of people here offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism on the OP's notion of changing our government over officially to "2 wolves and a sheep arguing over what's for dinner" type of government and he quite obviously has not even bothered to visit these websites (mises.org, lewrockwell.com) and search for "democracy" and read for himself the evils of this system.

So why keep wasting your time with the ignorance? This thread should be the example of a democracy to him. You have 50 people saying "Democracy is bad you moron, go read about it here!" and he has the right and the freedom to NOT do what all of us are saying.

 

[RSLudlum]

Also propery rights get destroyed in a democracy. I have a volleyball court set up in my backyard. If the community wanted to claim it for the community's use, all they'd have to do is have a vote, and everybody that would like to play volleyball would definitely vote yes so they could use my volleyball court anytime...Now wouldn't that be against my right of property??

Same applies if a person has a fishing pond on his property and there is a lack of fishing holes in the area. Would it be right for the community to vote for the owner's fishing pond to be claimed for the community's want to fish?

 

[Mini-Me]

The problem with pure democracy is that it is mob rule: Whatever the majority wants, they can have, and that includes eating the minority's babies.

A democratic Constitutional republic with limited government is intended to limit what decisions can be made using "majority rule."

Now, there is I suppose something to be said for having limited government in which all laws are created through ballot initiatives or something like that, rather than through representatives - we here at RPF do tend to conflate the idea of limited government with that of a representative republic - but the problem is that most people simply do not have the time to educate themselves on the issues. The idea of representatives is that they can spend all of their time thinking about these things. Furthermore, representatives are a corollary of having multiple sovereign state (or even local) governments that are then represented in the federal (not national) government. That was why Senators were originally chosen by the states. In other words, representatives are a corollary of overall decentralization of power, a great idea that has unfortunately eroded over the course of our existence as a nation.

Of course, the place where we went wrong in this country was in not having enough checks and balances to enforce the Constitution on the government. Personally, I would support a Constitutional Amendment which allows any citizen to bring a jury-decided suit against the government for a particular law, and if the jury determines by a majority vote the law is unconstitutional or simply unjust, the law is immediately invalidated across its entire jurisdiction. This would prevent all legislation that the vast majority of all citizens cannot agree upon.

Also, I believe that the criteria for passing new laws should be significantly increased from a mere 50+% majority vote to a 95+% majority vote...that way, government is limited to the duties that almost everybody can agree it should perform.

 

[Theocrat]

A Democracy Does Not a Good Republic Make

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

The United States of America was never designed to be a democracy. As many members on here have already pointed out, our country was established as a constitutional republic, which means we have representatives of the people who are bound to fulfill their duties in government under the rule of law (the Constitution), and the powers of government are limited and separated by the rule of law. A democracy is a quantitatively-based system of government, where the emphasis is on good laws enacted by majority opinion. On the other hand, a republic is a qualitatively-based system of government, where the emphasis is on the goodness of the person representing the people to make good laws. It is for this reason that a republican form of government is much more difficult than a democracy, due to where the emphasis is made. Ethics is the key to our republican form of government, not statistics, as it is in a democracy.

The problem is that most Americans fail to see this distinction, and they are too lazy to study the principles of the issues and virtues of the candidates which will represent them in office. We've been taught for so long that our nation is a democracy, and it shows everytime there's a major election. Notice how the emphasis is usually on just "getting the vote out." We hardly ever focus on who's the right candidate for his or her respective office, but just who will get the most votes. That's why our media is so addicted to polls because they show what the majority of people think about an issue, not whether the issue being polled is right or wrong at the outset.

The danger of it all is that people assume that if they simply cast a vote for the candidate of their choice, then they've done their duty as an American citizen for the next two, four, or six years. The average American citizen rarely holds their representatives accountable for their votes in office nor do they contact/visit their representatives to check up on whether they've remained true to the Constitution (as well as their oath to it) and what they promised to protect and preserve during their campaign. No, we lazy Americans leave that "political stuff" to the politicians, and we go back to our dollars, our Dodges, and our Doritos. What we've ended up with are career politicians who care more about keeping their jobs in government than serving their constituents' needs and rights, and scandals and deceit have become hallmarks of being a politician. We think casting a vote at the ballot box is the resolution to bad government, but we've missed the principle and effects of what that vote costs us.

No, I say that America is acting like a democracy today. The transformation has already taken place. If we don't return to the qualities of our form of government rather than quantities of the same (where the focus is on the worth of the politician, not the process itself), then our nation will indeed continue on the road to destruction, with no hope of ever turning back. The result will be socialistic, communitarian imperialism under the pretense of being a "democratic republic." Frighteningly enough, we're not too far from that now here in America.

We need to remember the words of John Adams where he stated, "t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue," and "[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." If we miss that, then we've squandered everything our Fathers stored up for us.

 

[nate895]

Also, I believe that the criteria for passing new laws should be significantly increased from a mere 50+% majority vote to a 95+% majority vote...that way, government is limited to the duties that almost everybody can agree it should perform.

Problem: No law would ever be passed. We wouldn't be able to pass a declaration of war against Japan in WWII if it came to a vote among the people, requiring 95% support.

 

[powerofreason]

Problem: No law would ever be passed. We wouldn't be able to pass a declaration of war against Japan in WWII if it came to a vote among the people, requiring 95% support.

What were the actual vote numbers?

 

[nate895]

What were the actual vote numbers?

The vote was 388-1 in the House (who was the no vote), 82-0 in the Senate. The problem is when it come to a vote by the people.

 

[Mini-Me]

Problem: No law would ever be passed. We wouldn't be able to pass a declaration of war against Japan in WWII if it came to a vote among the people, requiring 95% support.

Well, first of all, I was in fact actually referring to a 95% vote among representatives, not the people themselves.
In any case, I believe high standards are a good thing: The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war is that it's the representatives of the people, not bureaucrats, who should decide whether war is necessary. If any significant amount of the population (and/or amount of representatives) is opposed to a war, then does it not stand to reason that there might be a very good reason why our boys shouldn't be sent over to a foreign country to fight and die?

The idea of a required 95% majority in the House and Senate is a check against "one-time decision" situations from going through when there's a significant amount of dissent. The idea of citizens being able to bring majority (50%) jury-decided suits against particular laws is to give the people a direct avenue to striking down perpetual laws with significant opposition, e.g. the PATRIOT Act, the creation of the IRS and the income tax, etc.

 

[nate895]

Well, first of all, I was in fact actually referring to a 95% vote among representatives, not the people themselves.
In any case, I believe high standards are a good thing: The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war is that it's the representatives of the people, not bureaucrats, who should decide whether war is necessary. If any significant amount of the population is opposed to a war, then does it not stand to reason that there might be a very good reason why our boys shouldn't be sent over to a foreign country to fight and die?

You can never get more than 80-85% of a population on board with a war because the rest are pacifists, who believe we should NEVER go to war, even if attacked unprovoked with overwhelming force that would conquer the United States.

 

[Mini-Me]

You can never get more than 80-85% of a population on board with a war because the rest are pacifists, who believe we should NEVER go to war, even if attacked unprovoked with overwhelming force that would conquer the United States.

...which is a good argument for making it a 95% vote among representatives who are elected by mere plurality, rather than a 95% vote among the people themselves.

 

[nate895]

The only vote against the war was apparently Jeanette Rankin, Republican of Montana. She was a pacifist, who said "I cannot vote for a war since I cannot go to war myself." She served two terms, and the other one included the declaration of war against Germany in WWI, which she also opposed.

 

[Mini-Me]

The only vote against the war was apparently Jeanette Rankin, Republican of Montana. She was a pacifist, who said "I cannot vote for a war since I cannot go to war myself." She served two terms, and the other one included the declaration of war against Germany in WWI, which she also opposed.

Yup. It's difficult for pacifists (with ideas the vast majority of people disagree with) to get elected...and that's why a 95% vote among representatives will not prevent any truly necessary or just wars from being declared.

 

[nate895]

...which is a good argument for making it a 95% vote among representatives who are elected by mere plurality, rather than a 95% vote among the people themselves.

But we are talking about democracy here, which would necessarily include a vote by the people, and the same rules should apply to both. I also think that there should only be a majority vote on laws, but if those laws are limited by the powers in the Constitution, then they can do little mischief no matter what.

 

[billbob]

Democracy isn't so bad as described here. Specialy not the direct democracy like we have here in Switzerland.

Switzerland has 26 Cantons (States), we have a federalistic System. Our Country is very close to a Republic like in the USA. Our Constitution is also very similar to the US Constitution.

The main difference is, that we (as citizens) can organise referendums and initiatives against decision of our government. If a group has collected 50'000 Signs for a referendum, the whole Country has to vote for or against the referendum. (If it's a NO our government has donne a good job, if it's YES they have to find an other solution).

I will not miss our right to make referendums. The last example was the Referendum against biometrical swiss passports and RFID Chips on ID Cards (www.freiheitskampagne.ch) I have also signed for it. By the way, this referendum was organised by a Ron Paul supporter and the owner of http://www.ronpauleurope.net/

We can vote about biometrical Passports next Year. There will be some debates on TV with experts, and the chance is very good that the Referendum will be accepted.

We are voting 3 or 4 times per Year, we can not blame our government for their decisions because we are part of it, and we can do something about it. Referendums were also a reason why we are not in the EU.

 

[Mini-Me]

But we are talking about democracy here, which would necessarily include a vote by the people, and the same rules should apply to both. I also think that there should only be a majority vote on laws, but if those laws are limited by the powers in the Constitution, then they can do little mischief no matter what.

It's true that we're talking about democracy in this thread, but you were responding to my post in particular, in which I responded that I favor representative democracy (e.g. a republic) with strictly limited Constitutional government.

You're right that laws can do little mischief if they're limited by the Constitution, but the very point of this thread is that we've learned from experience that our representatives do not follow the Constitution...and we need to change things to make sure that can never happen again. I believe Thomas Jefferson is correct when he says, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Personally, I now believe that includes confidence that man will follow the Constitution willingly. Government officials must be forced. In my opinion, the #1 best way to do this is to allow citizens to file suit against the government over particular laws and let the majority vote of a jury strike down an unconstitutional or unjust law. We need a direct way to enforce Constitutionality when the government will not follow the rules.

However, I support such a huge supermajority requirement for creating new laws because some laws would still be able to cause way too much damage before citizens could invalidate them.

 

[werdd]

Democracy isn't so bad as described here. Specialy not the direct democracy like we have here in Switzerland.

Switzerland has 26 Cantons (States), we have a federalistic System. Our Country is very close to a Republic like in the USA. Our Constitution is also very similar to the US Constitution.

The main difference is, that we (as citizens) can organise referendums and initiatives against decision of our government. If a group has collected 50'000 Signs for a referendum, the whole Country has to vote for or against the referendum. (If it's a NO our government has donne a good job, if it's YES they have to find an other solution).

I will not miss our right to make referendums. The last example was the Referendum against biometrical swiss passports and RFID Chips on ID Cards (www.freiheitskampagne.ch) I have also signed for it. By the way, this referendum was organised by a Ron Paul supporter and the owner of http://www.ronpauleurope.net/

We can vote about biometrical Passports next Year. There will be some debates on TV with experts, and the chance is very good that the Referendum will be accepted.

We are voting 3 or 4 times per Year, we can not blame our government for their decisions because we are part of it, and we can do something about it. Referendums were also a reason why we are not in the EU.

The demographics are so much different in sweden. The US is so diverse, and for that reason the most power should be left to the states.

Of course state powers have suffered much since the civil war...

A constitutional republic as it existed prior to 1863, and prefferably just after jackson killed the fed, is the best system the world will ever know.

 

[damon04]

We were never meant to be a democracy!! That's what they want you to think!! Democracy leads to rule by the mob, and through contolled media/education, that mob can be influenced to vote between two candidates that are controlled by the same people!!

We were meant to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!! geez..

 

[nate895]

It's true that we're talking about democracy in this thread, but you were responding to my post in particular, in which I responded that I favor representative democracy (e.g. a republic) with strictly limited Constitutional government.

You're right that laws can do little mischief if they're limited by the Constitution, but the very point of this thread is that we've learned from experience that our representatives do not follow the Constitution...and we need to change things to make sure that can never happen again. I believe Thomas Jefferson is correct when he says, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Personally, I now believe that includes confidence that man will follow the Constitution willingly. Government officials must be forced. In my opinion, the #1 best way to do this is to allow citizens to file suit against the government over particular laws and let the majority vote of a jury strike down an unconstitutional or unjust law. We need a direct way to enforce Constitutionality when the government will not follow the rules.

However, I support such a huge supermajority requirement for creating new laws because some laws would still be able to cause way too much damage before citizens could invalidate them.

It would still pass with our current House and Senate. The bailout wouldn't have passed, but all the other oppressive legislation still would. The only way to restrict the hand of the federal government is to use nullification in the states if they violate the Constitution.

 

[Mini-Me]

It would still pass with our current House and Senate. The bailout wouldn't have passed, but all the other oppressive legislation still would. The only way to restrict the hand of the federal government is to use nullification in the states if they violate the Constitution.

The Iraq War Resolution wouldn't have passed a 95% majority call, either. When unjust or unconstitutional longlasting laws like the PATRIOT Act would have passed anyway, that's precisely why I support invalidation by jury. Nullification by the states is great, but we've already seen that it's just not enough.