3 ms·

The US isn't a direct democracy and, if I understand history correctly, that was on purpose and not just a matter of practicality. A direct democracy allows the

The US isn't a direct democracy and, if I understand history correctly, that was on purpose and not just a matter of practicality. A direct democracy allows the majority to pass laws that benefit themselves while punishing the minority. We already have politicians passing ridiculous laws just to pander for votes; I can't see how it wouldn't be worse if the people being pandered to made the laws instead. The internet has given us a front row seat to witness the fact that, regardless of which side of an issue they're on, there are a lot of people who don't arrive at their opinions through any sort of research, discussion, or consideration. This is probably confirmation bias on my part, but there seems to be a lot more people who'd vote how Wil Wheaton or Justin Bieber told them to than those who'd spend ten minutes reading a few different news sources about a particular ballot initiative to form their own opinion. One would hope, if things were working ideally, that representatives in congress would consider the constitution, existing laws, and their constituents best interests when passing new laws. I'm not so naive to think that things are anywhere close to ideal, but I'm not sure that direct democracy is a better solution.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
calibraxis 13y ago
But which minority? The US founders clearly weren't talking about non-whites and women, who were property. Instead, the minority was the wealthy elites. During the "Secret Debates of the Federal Convention" (where the windows were shut in the summer heat so those outside couldn't hear what was said), the Father of the Constitution, Madison, discussed the conflicting interests between "the day laborer" and "the man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage": "In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. [...] Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp) More useful to read than the Federalist Papers, which are propaganda. (BTW, it may help to know that the senate originally wasn't open to popular election. That battle was finally won in 1913, with the 17th amendment.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

calibraxis 13y ago

But which minority? The US founders clearly weren't talking about non-whites and women, who were property. Instead, the minority was the wealthy elites. During the "Secret Debates of the Federal Convention" (where the windows were shut in the summer heat so those outside couldn't hear what was said), the Father of the Constitution, Madison, discussed the conflicting interests between "the day laborer" and "the man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage": "In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. [...] Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp) More useful to read than the Federalist Papers, which are propaganda. (BTW, it may help to know that the senate originally wasn't open to popular election. That battle was finally won in 1913, with the 17th amendment.)