3 ms·

While I agree, or at least am willing to hear more about various points, none argue for a direct democracy. For a direct democracy you need a small population

While I agree, or at least am willing to hear more about various points, none argue for a direct democracy. For a direct democracy you need a small population that is homogeneous in at least outlook if not in race. The countries that come closest to it are largely a single race. I also think that republican forms of government collapse when you get 100+ million. The US has been straining for sometime to hold itself together. More and more people feel divided. If it wasn't for the inherent weakness to outside attack, I'd prefer to see the US divide into regional countries that are better able to manage themselves. For example, a $15 hourly wage would bankrupt rural Florida. We hear more and more about that at a Congressional level. The same is true for most of the rural areas of the country. A better answer is for the States to move to minimum wages that fit their territories.

jrobn 8y ago
I wasn't putting through arguments for direct democracy. Just that the current system is badly failing the people and it needs to change. Point number 1 & 2 would actually move us more to a direct democracy than you think. But direct democracy isn't the answer. We need to re-establish the fairness, and by extension, faith in the federal government. Look, this sentiment has been echoed in polls for years. The congress has a historically bad approval rating. The presidency, not so much. Because people lean to a strong man in times of feeling under represented. This is how dictatorships are born. The US needs to change[1] [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dinge...