The article wasn't what I expected. As I read it, his main point is a valid one. If you want change, you have to participate in making that change. That partic

The article wasn't what I expected. As I read it, his main point is a valid one. If you want change, you have to participate in making that change. That participation is not limited to once every 4 year vote ( in US ), but rather an ongoing participation in society. There are some valid criticism of this approach ( demoracracy doesn't scale well; it does work well on more local level, but you don't want to have a vote for every little issue ).