NationStates Jolt Archive

is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
-Thomas Jefferson

(I may or may not think otherwise)

You could think of it this way- either 51 people are pissed, or 49 people are pissed. Plan A is better.

Also, usually the sides are not 51/49. That's only in the US, where people don't vote because it rained.

I agree that a democracy is not full proof, but it remains the best form of government created.

If only the US was a democracy and not a Republic.

depends on how organized the 50.01% are, and how apathetic or fractured the 49.99% are.

I agree that a democracy is not full proof, but it remains the best form of government created.

If only the US was a democracy and not a Republic.

True democracy would most likely not work on such a massive scale. Hence, the reason Rome became a Republic.

Well, one could have had each state as a semi-modern equivalent of a city-state, but with some BIG overall law, say, a constitution.

I agree that a democracy is not full proof, but it remains the best form of government created.

If only the US was a democracy and not a Republic.

The U.S. is a Democratic Republic. A true Republic would be an oligarchy, like Rome.

Of course, a true Democracy would have every citizen involved in the process of legislation, which would be nice if it wasn't so hard to achieve.

A true democracy would have all persons voting in every issue. On such a massiv scale this is damn near impossible. Which is why we are a democratic republic.

* snores loudly, rolls onto side *

* snores loudly, rolls onto side *

*does the same*

Well, one could have had each state as a semi-modern equivalent of a city-state, but with some BIG overall law, say, a constitution.
Yeah, we tried having that w/the Articles of Confederation - damn, do I wish they succeeded.

It wasn't much of a try. First off, voter apathy was worse then than now, very much due to transportation and information problems. Secondly, there was no central constitution to keep everyone from killing each other. Thirdly, the lack of infrastructure in the country and in the government made it impossible to have a stable democracy.

The U.S. is a Democratic Republic. A true Republic would be an oligarchy, like Rome.

Of course, a true Democracy would have every citizen involved in the process of legislation, which would be nice if it wasn't so hard to achieve.

Why is it so hard to achieve? Communications technology could easily provide the means to enact a direct democracy on a nationwide scale, even for China.

The difficulty is that this would make all politicians unemployed, and you sure are not going to get two thirds of them willing to vote themselves out of a job to create such a system.

Everyone stopping to vote on every single possible issue?

You don't see a problem with this?

Everyone stopping to vote on every single possible issue?

You don't see a problem with this?

Since when did every representative vote on every issue?

You would not be obliged to vote. You just vote on those issues that interest/affect you. It could easily be done through mobile phone technology etc. Cheaper to provide this to every citizen, than to have politicians.

is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
-Thomas Jefferson

(I may or may not think otherwise)

but on different issues those 51% are going to be different groups of people out of the whole. that's why i'd support totalitarian democracy government form, unlimited power to the democracy.

That's only in the US, where people don't vote because it rained.

How sad but true. Then the minority complains but still doesn't vote in the next election. :(

* snores loudly, rolls onto side *

One of the minority who doesn’t vote but is very vocal in his/her complaints?

direct democracy would never work. Some sleazeball (like me :) ) would enact a law that removes voting rights from a minority group (like, say, Gays). There won't be enough opposition to stop it.

Pretty soon, some smart people will think it's a good idea and start removing right from Arabs, then chinese, and so on and so forth until a small group of people can enact any law they want since nobody can vote anymore.

That is why democracy needs check and balances.

But wait, you say, what about the constitution? Well, what about it? While Gays, Arabs, Chinese, Women, etc. are busy in the slow crawl of judicial proceedings, my little group will modify the constitution. It shouldn't be too hard to have around 80% of the votes for since everyone will have their voting rights removed.

Pretty soon, democracy is no longer the tyranny of 51% of the population, it's down to the tyranny of 12% of the population.

direct democracy would never work. Some sleazeball (like me :) ) would enact a law that removes voting rights from a minority group (like, say, Gays). There won't be enough opposition to stop it.

Pretty soon, some smart people will think it's a good idea and start removing right from Arabs, then chinese, and so on and so forth until a small group of people can enact any law they want since nobody can vote anymore.

That is why democracy needs check and balances.

But wait, you say, what about the constitution? Well, what about it? While Gays, Arabs, Chinese, Women, etc. are busy in the slow crawl of judicila proceedings, my little group will modify the constitution. It shouldn't be too hard to have around 80% of the votes for since everyone will have their voting rights removed.

Pretty soon, democracy is no longer the tyranny of 51% of the population, it's down to the tyranny of 12% of the population.

Hum! Lot's of food for thought here. I can see where you are going, in a true democracy where the majority rules can the rights of the minorities be protected? Damn good question.

Canuck: What you described is NOT real democracy. True representative democracy would technically make it so that EVERYONE has to vote on EVERYTHING they are elligeble to vote on. That means that we'd all have to set aside time every day to go to a polling place and vote. Think of the daily strain that would empound on every citizen and our infrastructure, when people can't show up for work because they had to wait in line to vote. And if anyone suggests we use some kind of mobile little shitta-ma-ditty for the on-the-go worker of tomorrow, just shut up, they will be hacked by some idiot kid, and all the votes will go to a large-breasted porn star.

direct democracy would never work. Some sleazeball (like me :) ) would enact a law that removes voting rights from a minority group (like, say, Gays). There won't be enough opposition to stop it.

Pretty soon, some smart people will think it's a good idea and start removing right from Arabs, then chinese, and so on and so forth until a small group of people can enact any law they want since nobody can vote anymore.

That is why democracy needs check and balances.

But wait, you say, what about the constitution? Well, what about it? While Gays, Arabs, Chinese, Women, etc. are busy in the slow crawl of judicila proceedings, my little group will modify the constitution. It shouldn't be too hard to have around 80% of the votes for since everyone will have their voting rights removed.

Pretty soon, democracy is no longer the tyranny of 51% of the population, it's down to the tyranny of 12% of the population.

This, plus the other hurdle would be that the more devious political activists would hire a hacker(s) to make sure that the direct voting system would vote their way.

I can see the green party giving a shady 10 million to some hacker to disrupt a vote about oil exploration. Or a big monopoly like Microsoft writing a loophole in the vote collection system that they could exploit if the government brought a securities case against them.

Wow, I agree with East Canuck on something ;)

Canuck: What you described is NOT real democracy. True representative democracy would technically make it so that EVERYONE has to vote on EVERYTHING they are elligeble to vote on. That means that we'd all have to set aside time every day to go to a polling place and vote. Think of the daily strain that would empound on every citizen and our infrastructure, when people can't show up for work because they had to wait in line to vote. And if anyone suggests we use some kind of mobile little shitta-ma-ditty for the on-the-go worker of tomorrow, just shut up, they will be hacked by some idiot kid, and all the votes will go to a large-breasted porn star.

First of all, there is no requirement to vote. In a democracy, a person could choose not to vote (abstention).

If the govt. gave everyone a computer or voting machine connected to the net, they could vote at home, work, library, or other public poling place. Probably be a lot cheaper than the system we have now.

direct democracy would never work. Some sleazeball (like me :) ) would enact a law that removes voting rights from a minority group (like, say, Gays). There won't be enough opposition to stop it.

Pretty soon, some smart people will think it's a good idea and start removing right from Arabs, then chinese, and so on and so forth until a small group of people can enact any law they want since nobody can vote anymore.

That is why democracy needs check and balances.

But wait, you say, what about the constitution? Well, what about it? While Gays, Arabs, Chinese, Women, etc. are busy in the slow crawl of judicial proceedings, my little group will modify the constitution. It shouldn't be too hard to have around 80% of the votes for since everyone will have their voting rights removed.

Pretty soon, democracy is no longer the tyranny of 51% of the population, it's down to the tyranny of 12% of the population.

that isn't a problem of direct democracy. under any and all systems it is entirely possible that a well organized group could remove power from more and more other groups until it is largely concentrated in very few hands. whether it's done psuedo-democratically or through a coup makes no difference. constitutions and checks and balances only work when the game is still being played by the rules - exactly the same in a direct democracy as it is in a semi-democratic republic.

the only real checks and balances worth squat are the ability to withdraw from the authority of a given political body, and the right of self defense.

direct democracy would never work. Some sleazeball (like me :) ) would enact a law that removes voting rights from a minority group (like, say, Gays). There won't be enough opposition to stop it.

Pretty soon, some smart people will think it's a good idea and start removing right from Arabs, then chinese, and so on and so forth until a small group of people can enact any law they want since nobody can vote anymore.

That is why democracy needs check and balances.

But wait, you say, what about the constitution? Well, what about it? While Gays, Arabs, Chinese, Women, etc. are busy in the slow crawl of judicial proceedings, my little group will modify the constitution. It shouldn't be too hard to have around 80% of the votes for since everyone will have their voting rights removed.

Pretty soon, democracy is no longer the tyranny of 51% of the population, it's down to the tyranny of 12% of the population.


It would not be possible to remove the direct voting rights from any section of the community without reforming the entire system. What is to stop a similar thing happening with representative democracy? Nothing. It would be possible for a law to be tabled that removed the right to vote in elections from certain groups. It is not done. why? Because people are not as stupid as you make them out to be here. If the right is universal it is universal. As soon you, as a voter, allow one group to exclude another, you are allowing your own vote to be excluded and people lnow this.

The popint is that there would not be enough support for it under a voluntary voting system. To change the constitution you would need two thirds of the entire adult population to approve the measure. You could not get two thirds of the adult population to approve mom's own apple pie, let alone a constitution change.

This, in itself, amy be a problem, as the constitution would become more and more outdated.

This, plus the other hurdle would be that the more devious political activists would hire a hacker(s) to make sure that the direct voting system would vote their way.

I can see the green party giving a shady 10 million to some hacker to disrupt a vote about oil exploration. Or a big monopoly like Microsoft writing a loophole in the vote collection system that they could exploit if the government brought a securities case against them.

and this isn't an issue now?

This, plus the other hurdle would be that the more devious political activists would hire a hacker(s) to make sure that the direct voting system would vote their way.

I can see the green party giving a shady 10 million to some hacker to disrupt a vote about oil exploration. Or a big monopoly like Microsoft writing a loophole in the vote collection system that they could exploit if the government brought a securities case against them.

Wow, I agree with East Canuck on something ;)

With current encrypting techniques, (those that the US Government wants banned as they can't break the coding) the hackers simply will not be able to do anything to the system. You would have to buy the system from a foreign source to avoid the threat of building in trapdoors, and have it audited by another disinterested party, but this is no problem as it has already been done for the elctoral system in one of the largest democracies on Earth. (Brazil has a secure electronic voting system).

Technical paranoia is all this is. A new age ludditism.

Additionally, a green activist group can just as easily buy laws today with 10 million.

With current encrypting techniques, (those that the US Government wants banned as they can't break the coding) the hackers simply will not be able to do anything to the system. You would have to buy the system from a foreign source to avoid the threat of building in trapdoors, and have it audited by another disinterested party, but this is no problem as it has already been done for the elctoral system in one of the largest democracies on Earth. (Brazil has a secure electronic voting system).

Technical paranoia is all this is. A new age ludditism.

Additionally, a green activist group can just as easily buy laws today with 10 million.

Actually, in our country it is very hard to get environmental legislation through. Mostly because of our unfortunate dependence on oil. And this from a Conservative environmentalist...

If you bought the voting system from another country, they could have a trap door in the diplomacy category, i.e. if someone brought up legilsation concerning that country.

Perhaps if you payed someone really well and then sent them to an island compound after they were done designing the system. Or hired somebody from an island compound, not associated with any nation.

If you bought the voting system from another country, they could have a trap door in the diplomacy category, i.e. if someone brought up legilsation concerning that country.

That's why he(or she) mentionned it being audited by another neutral country. Of course, the auditor should not be able to modify the code, or they would be able to put another trapdoor themselves.

is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
-Thomas Jefferson

(I may or may not think otherwise)

True. Then again, you can still influence the 2% to come on to your side. And it'll be the same the other way around.

Wow, looks like I'm not so lonely in my views afterall.

is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
-Thomas Jefferson

(I may or may not think otherwise)

True, but that's why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights to make it harder to take away those rights.

is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
-Thomas Jefferson

(I may or may not think otherwise)

LOL, I guess Jefferson must have been predicting the current Bush Administration then.

is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
-Thomas Jefferson

(I may or may not think otherwise)

Hear, hear!

LOL, I guess Jefferson must have been predicting the current Bush Administration then.

Go away. The President has not and can not do that and you know it. :headbang: