Quote:
Gramps said:
But "Representative Democracy," by its very nature, is letting someone else be your voice, and has been the cause of a great many problems.
|
So, the obvious question? What is better?
The reason we have representative LIMITED democracy is because of the truth behind the old saying "too many cooks in the kitchen makes for a poor meal".
In a representative LIMITED democracy, the people pick who they think will represent them best, theoretically, and that person will accept the ACCOUNTABILITY for those decisions, made in the peoples name.
The KEY to keeping a representative LIMITED democracy in check, is HOLDING THE DECISION MAKERS ACCOUNTABLE WITH FEROCITY.
The American PEOPLE have failed at this, the government is only doing what it can get away with.
Quote:
Gramps said:
Perhaps it's not nearly so flawed as rule by priests and kings, but one can see such trends emerging anyway, as well as political dynasties taking shape. I fail to see how voting is going to do much to reverse trends that have already been built into the system.
|
The system didn't fail, THE PEOPLE FAILED THE SYSTEM by neglecting their RESPONSIBILITIES to hold people accountable.
Is this not obvious?
Quote:
Gramps said:
And when politicians get elected, there is little guarantee with what they will do, other than how bad much of it will probably be. I increasingly find voting for representatives to be stupid, a perversion of self-responsibility and even an affront to real democracy.
|
Well, "real democracy" is a fools game, and anyone can, or should be able to explain why.