NationStates Jolt Archive

Now before I begin, I would like to clarify my definitions. I define a Republic as a form of government in which the people elect indaviduals to speak for them, and where the side of an argument with the most supporters gets free reign. I define a democracy as a system of government in which everyone gets a voice, and a compromise for leadership, where as opposed to a republic, both sides on an argument try to chose the leader closest to nuteral.

From Dictionary.com

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Function: noun
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


Now, given these definitions, I can safely say that the United States is a Republic. They call it a democracy, but it has virtually no social equality, and when is the last time someone in the U.S. voted for the most moderate canidate? Probably in the 1800s or earlier. The fact of the matter is almost everyone in the United States votes for one of two canidates: republican or democrat, who are constantly rivals. Less than 3% could have voted in the middle, as less than 3% voted third party, and most of those are more radical than the republicans or democrats.

The United States is a republic. They vote for their best reprosentivive, but rather than all the representitives being put together in parliment, only one comes out on top and that representive gets free reign.

This brings me back to my point. Who here would like to see the U.S. turned back into a democracy? And who here would like to see it remain the republic that it is? [Note: I do not want this to be a debating forum, I just want to get down to the heart of the matter: the core values that decide people's political stance. If you post a point with any number of flaws, then I will probably telegram you pointing out these flaws, and then you can make a counterpoint without clogging up the forum. I'll try to be as polite and unbias as possible.]

I am not stupid enough to think that I, or even everyone I know could organzie a nuteral party, but if there are enough pepople who support this, perhaps I'll visit various forum sites and get the idea out there, for some powerful indavidual to organize and salvage the system that is, for the most part, going down the tubes. If anyone here wants to ciruclate this idea, then please do so.

Post Script: If I am mistaken on any of my figures, referances, etc., please politely inform me, that I can edit my post to be as acurate as possible. I admit that I am not the most knowlagable person on third parties or voting figures, so any help to educate me would be appreciated.

How would one bring back the Democracy to America?

My only suggestion, get rid of Electoral College.

That is All it might take.

At least let us try it :)

How would one bring back the Democracy to America?

My only suggestion, get rid of Electoral College.

That is All it might take.

At least let us try it :)

Indeed. :) But to give eveyone a real voice, there might have to be a government sponsored debate site, but with strict moderation. (Id est, every new post's content is compated with all current posts, if it's a repeat, it's screened, if not, the mods have a look at it. If it's offensive or not in the spirit of debate, (such as "BUSH SUCKS!" or "DEMOCRACTS ARE F*#%!ERS!") then it's screened.) But this is something that will probably never happen, so getting rid of the eletoral college would be a great start. I wonder if it will ever happen...?

Oh, yes. Everyone trying to vote nuteral, rather than most-in-tune-with-your-beleifs party, would also be nice.

How would one bring back the Democracy to America?

My only suggestion, get rid of Electoral College.

That is All it might take.

At least let us try it :)
Damn straight, down with the electoral college

You are right that the United States does not fit the definition of a true democracy and that it is a Republic. What you miss, however, is that not all republics are democratic. The Roman Republic, for example, consisted of a Senate in which power changed hands through inheritance rather than popular vote. This is why the United States of America is called a democratic republic.
Also, by your very own definitions, the United States never was a democracy

From Dictionary.com

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Function: noun
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


Now, given these definitions, I can safely say that the United States is a Republic. They call it a democracy, but it has virtually no social equality, and when is the last time someone in the U.S. voted for the most moderate canidate? Probably in the 1800s or earlier. The fact of the matter is almost everyone in the United States votes for one of two canidates: republican or democrat, who are constantly rivals. Less than 3% could have voted in the middle, as less than 3% voted third party, and most of those are more radical than the republicans or democrats.

The United States is a republic. They vote for their best reprosentivive, but rather than all the representitives being put together in parliment, only one comes out on top and that representive gets free reign.

...

Post Script: If I am mistaken on any of my figures, referances, etc., please politely inform me, that I can edit my post to be as acurate as possible. I admit that I am not the most knowlagable person on third parties or voting figures, so any help to educate me would be appreciated.

the U.S. calls itself a republic, well, at least people who know what type of government they have. we are a representative democracy, which is a republic. however, since we vote on issues and representatives, people think we are a true democracy, which we are not.

it even says in our Pledge of Allegience "and to the republic for which it stands"



How would one bring back the Democracy to America?

My only suggestion, get rid of Electoral College.

That is All it might take.

At least let us try it :)


that woud be the only way to make it a true democracy, and would be a good idea beacuse then it would truly be what the people want, not what the larger states' majority wants

The U.S. isn't a democracy...representative republic...I've been taught that since eighth grade.

My college professor for U.S. History, said, on more than one occasion..."NO! We don't live in a democracy. Now, leave the class, take a deep breath, actually READ the textbook, and then come back and argue with me."

We're not a democracy because we don't directly vote for our president. We do vote, and the Electorate represents us. However, they don't vote based on what we vote. They MIGHT vote how we want them too.

The Founding Fathers put the Electorate in because the average American is an idiot(they may be the smartest person in the world, but politics can turn them into a ranting, babbling fool)....

Ihatevacations']Damn straight, down with the electoral college
Though they do have equal representation which in a way is good.

However, proportional represenation opens up the door for more ideas and such.

A parlimentary system would be good, but keep the senate the way it is.

The federal government is a republic, the state government is the democracy. Everything on the state/local level is directly elected.

I've wanted for the longest time for the electoral system to be abolished.

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
_____________

The whole point was to make a COMPROMISE so that small population states would have a voice versus large ones.
Every state would get at LEAST 3 votes: two senators + 1 Congressman.

I don't believe that a direct democracy would be the best alternative for this, or any other, currently existing Republic. As a Democratic Republic, the United States government gives voice to people who may have beliefs/opinions on the minority side of an issue, something that would not be possible in a system where every issue is decided by a ruling of the majority. If a direct democracy had been in place during the United States' Civil Rights Movement, it is a definite possibility that major forms of legal discrimination concerning racial heritage would still be in existence today. Therefore, I believe a Representative Republic is still the best form of government that the United States can have in representing all the people of the nation.

America must always remain the Constitutional Republic as it was intended to be. This nation won its independence and its founding leaders went through enough experience and had enough intelligence to create such a Republic that millions of Americans have sacrificed their lives for.

It will be only a representative democracy. But it is at its core a Republic based on a written Constitution.

The US is a republic, of course. But it also fits the definition of democracy given in the original post:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

The "or through elected representatives" covers US-style republics, and by using the word "democracy" to describe our style of government it is differentiated from tinpot dictatorships and Soviet-style autocracies masquerading under the title of "republic," like the Republic of Cuba, People's Republic of China or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (which has the dual achievement of being neither democratic nor a republic).

This nation won its independence and its founding leaders went through enough experience and had enough intelligence to create such a Republic that millions of Americans have sacrificed their lives for.

Of course, it's possible they were, to some extent, taking a stance of 'If the UK does it, we're not going to!' on this, but I wouldn't know, not having studied US history beyond a couple of incidents.

And I have no opinions whatsoever on what political system the US should adopt. Anarchy or dictatorship, it's all the same to me as long as they keep their fingers off the nuclear button.

Or the 'Invade United Kingdom' button.

Or various other buttons.

Hmm.

*snip*
There's a difference between democracy in the strict PoliSci sense and the more mainstream use of the term. In common usage, democracy means any system where the people get to vote and have some influence in the decisions of their government. Therefore, in common usage, the United States is a democracy.

Further, it never was an absolute democracy. To my knowledge, there's NEVER been an absolute democracy of the type you're describing. So we can't say we should return America to being something it never was.

It's also a bad idea. That would entail every person in the United States voting for every piece of legislation. Anyone could introduce a bill. Everyone would have to vote on MILITARY decisions. You get the idea.

Side note: Abolishing the electoral college wouldn't do much to bring the US closer to a strict definition democracy, because there would still be elected officials who make decisions for the people. It's a very slight difference in this context.

Wohooow there buckaroos!

Just leme get this straight: you have a congress, a senate, and every now and the you elect an electoral college with the express purpose of electing a president. Have I got it straight? What else am I missing? And what exactly is it that these bodies do?

Anyway, that's a lot of governing bodies, we only have one in Greece, the Vouli (meaning the will) and its hard enough keeping those 300 assholes in line.

Anyone care to comment? :headbang:

Anyone care to comment? :headbang:
No arguments here. Greek assholes are notoriously hard to keep in line.

Wohooow there buckaroos!

Just leme get this straight: you have a congress, a senate, and every now and the you elect an electoral college with the express purpose of electing a president. Have I got it straight? What else am I missing? And what exactly is it that these bodies do?

Anyway, that's a lot of governing bodies, we only have one in Greece, the Vouli (meaning the will) and its hard enough keeping those 300 assholes in line.

Anyone care to comment? :headbang:
No, not quite. The Electoral College is not a group of people, but rather a system in which each state has a certain number of votes to contribute based on its population size (Ex: California, which has the largest population in the entire country, has more votes than say Alaska, which has a small population). All of the possible votes in a state go to the candidate that the majority of the state's population voted for. Take John Kerry vs. George W. Bush. Kerry won the majority vote in my home state of Michigan -- therefore, all of the votes that Michigan had to contribute went to John Kerry. Bush was voted for by the majority of the people in Tennessee -- therefore, all of the votes contributed by Tennessee went to George W. Bush. The winner of the election is determined by whoever obtains the most votes through the Electoral College.

Make sense?

No, not quite. The Electoral College is not a group of people, but rather a system in which each state has a certain number of votes to contribute based on its population size (Ex: California, which has the largest population in the entire country, has more votes than say Alaska, which has a small population). All of the possible votes in a state go to the candidate that the majority of the state's population voted for. Take John Kerry vs. George W. Bush. Kerry won the majority vote in my home state of Michigan -- therefore, all of the votes that Michigan had to contribute went to John Kerry. Bush was voted for by the majority of the people in Tennessee -- therefore, all of the votes contributed by Tennessee went to George W. Bush. The winner of the election is determined by whoever obtains the most votes through the Electoral College.

Make sense?

Technically, it is a group of people, as each state elects "Electors" who cast their votes for the President and Vice President in each state on the second Wednesday in December.

There is no Constitutional requirement that the Electors elected cast their electoral vote for the candidate chosen by their state. However, that is the tradition. There have been examples of Electors not giving their vote to the candidate that won the popular vote in their state, such as in the 1976 election, a Washington elector pledged to Gerald Ford actually voted for Ronald Reagan. Some states, though, fine their Electors if they don't vote the correct way.

The Electoral College is critical - it is the only thing that ensures that rural states and rural voters have a say in the presidential election cycle. If we had direct election of the President and Vice President, the candidates would focus all of their attention on the largest cities and largest states, and ignore the vast majority of the country. In order for those who live in the midwest, Alaska, Hawaii, DC and other places from being disenfranchised, we have to keep the EC system the way it is.

B

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
_____________

The whole point was to make a COMPROMISE so that small population states would have a voice versus large ones.
Every state would get at LEAST 3 votes: two senators + 1 Congressman.

You can also add the XII Amendment to that list while your at it :) That deals directly with the Electoral College.

You can also add the XII Amendment to that list while your at it :) That deals directly with the Electoral College.

True, but I figured that Article II read easily enough for my purposes. I'd had somebody say "WRONG!" when I paraphrased it (albeit w/o a link) in a different forum... not that they said WHY or anything. ;)

The Electoral College is critical - it is the only thing that ensures that rural states and rural voters have a say in the presidential election cycle. If we had direct election of the President and Vice President, the candidates would focus all of their attention on the largest cities and largest states, and ignore the vast majority of the country. In order for those who live in the midwest, Alaska, Hawaii, DC and other places from being disenfranchised, we have to keep the EC system the way it is.
But that's the way it is now. The only places that get any attention are Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and to a smaller extent New Mexico and New Hampshire. 7 million plus in New York City, I doubt either candidate had a rally there. If Bush had somehow managed to turn 10000 voters in his favor at a New York rally it would be all for nothing, because it wouldn't be enough to swing New York Republican, by a long shot.

However, if the electoral college was abolished, they would focus everywhere, because every voter you turn in your favor actually means one more vote for you. With the electoral college, some voters could get you an electoral vote (if they were in a swing state), but in most places turning voters has no effect. A vote from someone living in a Cleveland suburb would mean as much as a vote from a farm in Montana which would mean as much as a vote from someone living in Boston.

at least the socialist prussians are smart. THe US doesn't claim to be a democracy at all, millions of school kids declare it otherwise evreyday.

True, but I figured that Article II read easily enough for my purposes. I'd had somebody say "WRONG!" when I paraphrased it (albeit w/o a link) in a different forum... not that they said WHY or anything. ;)

Meh, who cares what they think.

To those who want the E.C. banned: Good luck in getting a constitutional amendment passed to get rid of the Electoral College. It won't happen.

But that's the way it is now. The only places that get any attention are Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and to a smaller extent New Mexico and New Hampshire. 7 million plus in New York City, I doubt either candidate had a rally there. If Bush had somehow managed to turn 10000 voters in his favor at a New York rally it would be all for nothing, because it wouldn't be enough to swing New York Republican, by a long shot.

However, if the electoral college was abolished, they would focus everywhere, because every voter you turn in your favor actually means one more vote for you. With the electoral college, some voters could get you an electoral vote (if they were in a swing state), but in most places turning voters has no effect. A vote from someone living in a Cleveland suburb would mean as much as a vote from a farm in Montana which would mean as much as a vote from someone living in Boston.

I campaign in New York, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami and Baltimore. Election over.

I campaign in New York, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami and Baltimore. Election over.

You forgot San Francisco. :D

You forgot San Francisco. :D

Too small. Only 50.000 people live in SF proper. Maybe I could tag on Seattle or Dallas, but in reality, I could pretty much win with just those cities...

Too small. Only 50.000 people live in SF proper. Maybe I could tag on Seattle or Dallas, but in reality, I could pretty much win with just those cities...

True.

Thank God we have the electoral College. It keeps things as even as possible

Thank God we have the electoral College. It keeps things as even as possible

:D The Electoral College: keeping the cities from dominating politics since, 1791.

:D The Electoral College: keeping the cities from dominating politics since, 1791.

Now there's a great slogan for the Electoral College! :D

that woud be the only way to make it a true democracy, and would be a good idea beacuse then it would truly be what the people want, not what the larger states' majority wants

Getting rid of the electorial college would not make the US a true democracy. You would still have the House and Senate. They are the ones that pass the laws and to be a true democracy every citizen would have to have the right to vote on every bill. It would be a very cumbersom and inefficient system.

By the way, how many of you know why the system of the electorial college was set up? A little civics lesson here.

The Founding Fathers put the Electorate in because the average American is an idiot(they may be the smartest person in the world, but politics can turn them into a ranting, babbling fool)....

No, not true. I suggest reading that book your History prof suggested you read and try again.

The federal government is a republic, the state government is the democracy. Everything on the state/local level is directly elected.

No quite. Do you personally get to vote on every bill that is proposed in the State Capital? If you do not get to vote and only your elected State Representatives and Senators do, then it is still a Republic. Some towns in New England that still have town meeting are true democracies. Each citizen has to opportunity to vote on each proposal and majority rules. Democracy vs. Republic is not just about the Presidential election.

The whole point was to make a COMPROMISE so that small population states would have a voice versus large ones.
Every state would get at LEAST 3 votes: two senators + 1 Congressman.

Correct, I guess I should have read all the posts before posting my question. :( So you get an A+

Getting rid of the electorial college would not make the US a true democracy. You would still have the House and Senate. They are the ones that pass the laws and to be a true democracy every citizen would have to have the right to vote on every bill. It would be a very cumbersom and inefficient system.

By the way, how many of you know why the system of the electorial college was set up? A little civics lesson here.

I know why! To make sure that no one state can decide an election. It gives the smaller states a say into who gets elected. The only reason it was added was because the smaller states refused to agree to it because they realized that their states will get ignored by the candidates due to their low population.

Wohooow there buckaroos!

Just leme get this straight: you have a congress, a senate, and every now and the you elect an electoral college with the express purpose of electing a president. Have I got it straight? What else am I missing? And what exactly is it that these bodies do?

Anyway, that's a lot of governing bodies, we only have one in Greece, the Vouli (meaning the will) and its hard enough keeping those 300 assholes in line.

Anyone care to comment? :headbang:

The answer to your question lies in a very short document called the Constitution. It answers the questions you are asking and spells out the "exactly what these bodies do."

PS stop banging your head, it can mess up brain cells and give you a headache. :eek:

There is no Constitutional requirement that the Electors elected cast their electoral vote for the candidate chosen by their state. However, that is the tradition. There have been examples of Electors not giving their vote to the candidate that won the popular vote in their state, such as in the 1976 election, a Washington elector pledged to Gerald Ford actually voted for Ronald Reagan.

Don't some states have a law requiring the electors to vote for whoever won a majority of the votes when the electors cast the first ballot? Also, don't some states have a proportional system where the electoral votes are divided?

I know why! To make sure that no one state can decide an election. It gives the smaller states a say into who gets elected. The only reason it was added was because the smaller states refused to agree to it because they realized that their states will get ignored by the candidates due to their low population.

True and at that time, the country was divided into the industrial North and the agrarian South. Politics was much more regional at that time and the agrarian states were afraid they would be dominated by the more populated industrial states.

Don't some states have a law requiring the electors to vote for whoever won a majority of the votes when the electors cast the first ballot?

Yep. Some states do have those laws but not all and certainly not a majority I think. I think its like 12 states that have such laws on the books.

Also, don't some states have a proportional system where the electoral votes are divided?

I think Maine does. I know its very rare. I think only two states do. Maine and Nebraska.

True and at that time, the country was divided into the industrial North and the agrarian South. Politics was much more regional at that time and the agrarian states were afraid they would be dominated by the more populated industrial states.

To a point yes. Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Connecticut also opposed it till the electoral college was put it because of their population size. It really became more regionalized when the Idustrial revolution hit American Shores and the North rapidly developed.

BAH! US Politics! Who needs it?

Here in Australia, it's alot different. Simpler. Interesting thing is, that there's going to be government majority in both the House of Representatives (the lower house) and the Senate (Upper House). It works a little like British parliament - same mindless chatter, same insulting each other (half of their conversations seem to entail calling each other idiots, lol), just not as staid. This, of course, doesn't mean anything's going to get done... lol.

Do you have to have a referendum (vote) on a change to your constitution over there? it has to here. I think only three of them have ever passed here. The last one was on whether we should become a republic (which got rejected because of the model that was proposed - people want to elect a President - that wasn't the model in the proposal).

Don't some states have a law requiring the electors to vote for whoever won a majority of the votes when the electors cast the first ballot? Also, don't some states have a proportional system where the electoral votes are divided?

Maine's had it since the 60s, but had never done so. Kansas or Nebraska has it too, but (likewise) it's never happened there either.

In Britain people have been talking about voting reform for ages, they say a 'first past the post system' allows larger parties to dominate politics.

In the UK three parties dominate our parliament (And the liberals havent won since before the first world war)

Can you imagine a bill having to please 20 parties or more?You would never get anything done.

Before adressing the issue of voting reform, I think we should raise turnout, however the reason for lower turnout might be that people think their vote is useless because they dont like any of the amjior candidates, and that their vote would be wasted on a third party.

I actually think our system works (Or it at least in May 2005 it did) We reduced Tony Blair's majority as a punishment for lying to us about Iraq. But we didnt let the hopeless Conservatives or Liberals in.

I think the real key to a democratic society is not the number of parties, but an accountable government and Transparent institutions. After all, it is only after our national Broadcasting system (The BBC) exposed the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier that we all knew about the lies that lead ot the Iraq war.

It is in this way that governments do what is best for their people.

Do you have to have a referendum (vote) on a change to your constitution over there? it has to here. I think only three of them have ever passed here. The last one was on whether we should become a republic (which got rejected because of the model that was proposed - people want to elect a President - that wasn't the model in the proposal).

Amendment Process:

1. Introduced in both US House and Senate
2. Debated on
3. Needs 2/3rds majority in both houses
4. Goes to the states for Ratification
5. 38 States need to ratify it in order for it to become a part of the constitution.

It works a little like British parliament - same mindless chatter, same insulting each other (half of their conversations seem to entail calling each other idiots, lol

I love and loathe that about parliament. The cheers that the leader of the opposition gets from his own party from insulting the Prime minister, and then the jeers from the others when the PM makes a snide comeback.

You watch C-SPAN and senators are so much more statesmanlike. But, its a bit more boring.

And then in the house of lords, when you watch BBC parliament, there's either no-one there or they're asleep. Its hilarious.

Only in Britain or Austrailia could a man who punches people in public become Deputy Prime Minister.

A scary thought: If Tony resigns or dies, Prescott will be PM until leadership battle is sorted out.

Of course, it's possible they were, to some extent, taking a stance of 'If the UK does it, we're not going to!' on this, but I wouldn't know, not having studied US history beyond a couple of incidents.


Just leme get this straight: you have a congress, a senate, and every now and the you elect an electoral college with the express purpose of electing a president. Have I got it straight? What else am I missing? And what exactly is it that these bodies do?

Anyway, that's a lot of governing bodies, we only have one in Greece, the Vouli (meaning the will) and its hard enough keeping those 300 assholes in line.

Anyone care to comment? :headbang:

The electoral college is a great concept. In fact, I say it was the first attempt at an "anti-hitler mechanism". Hitler was elected democratically. The electoral college was an attempt to get smart people to vote not based on mob rule, but in their most reasonable decision because THEY were intended to be the people that were most well versed in political activities. Of course, now its really all a joke due to the whole Bush beating a guy like Ralph Nader who is an amazing American citizen and advocate for the people. But there you go.

BAH! US Politics! Who needs it?

Do you have to have a referendum (vote) on a change to your constitution over there? it has to here. I think only three of them have ever passed here. The last one was on whether we should become a republic (which got rejected because of the model that was proposed - people want to elect a President - that wasn't the model in the proposal).

Heh. US citizens need it. :p

Yes, but it is notoriously hard to pass an "initiative" to ammend the Constitution. The whole gay marriage ban is a joke. You need to have two thirds of both houses pass it as mentioned. Then three fourths of the states need to ratify it into law.

BAH! US Politics! Who needs it?

Here in Australia, it's alot different. Simpler. Interesting thing is, that there's going to be government majority in both the House of Representatives (the lower house) and the Senate (Upper House). It works a little like British parliament - same mindless chatter, same insulting each other (half of their conversations seem to entail calling each other idiots, lol), just not as staid. This, of course, doesn't mean anything's going to get done... lol.

Do you have to have a referendum (vote) on a change to your constitution over there? it has to here. I think only three of them have ever passed here. The last one was on whether we should become a republic (which got rejected because of the model that was proposed - people want to elect a President - that wasn't the model in the proposal).

That's great, but you've got 20 million people... the USA has 295 million. Imagine Australia, but with 15 times the population. With the same land area. (Very few people live in Alaska or Hawaii, and Australia is about the same size as the "lower 48"). Not only would the issues no doubt change, but it'd get a LOT harder to organize/hold.