According to the theory

[ellapenella]

So in theory the representatives elected will do what is right by the people in order to keep the republic because it's not really a democracy. I think I just learned something new because I thought we were a democracy and a republic. Mr. Bill Cooper explained that a democracy is ruled by mob mentality that always vote themselves every kind of benefit they can vote themselves.

At 47min. of this interview he explains why . Also what he says about the rain forest at 43min.  in to be interesting also.

 

[Piney]

31 minutes ago, seanjo said:

We have reached a technological point, where we could have government by referendum, everyone has a vote box and votes on daily issues...BUT...would you want that?

Frank Herbert in "Chapterhouse Dune" worked out a total participatory democracy. We also practice this in the Friends (Quaker) Meeting but the problem is when nobody completely agrees the change in the Meeting rules or policies never gets passed. 

[+ouija ouija]

1 hour ago, seanjo said:

We have reached a technological point, where we could have government by referendum, everyone has a vote box and votes on daily issues...BUT...would you want that?

YES!

[DarkHunter]

54 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

YES!

So you essentially want every decision being made by a mass of people who will have little to no knowledge of what they are voting on and are completely incapable of understanding or predicting the repercussions of their actions while drowning out completely the much smaller crowd of people who actually do know about the subject completely.

It would be the worst, most inefficient, and least stable form of government imaginable.

[+Not A Rockstar]

which is all fine and good until you end up with this select group who knows what is best for us all voting in every benefit for themselves instead. In effect the mobster mentality versus the mob mentality . 

[+Hammerclaw]

Empowering a new "Moral Majority" of questionable morals?

[bison]

In a true republic, the individual, and the minority are protected from the whims of the majority, by the rule of law. A republic also preserves itself by the rule of law. Otherwise it could be voted out of existence, via the manipulation of mass opinion by tyrannical demagogues.

[acute]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

So you essentially want every decision being made by a mass of people who will have little to no knowledge of what they are voting on and are completely incapable of understanding or predicting the repercussions of their actions while drowning out completely the much smaller crowd of people who actually do know about the subject completely.

It would be the worst, most inefficient, and least stable form of government imaginable.

Welcome to Brexit!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

6 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

So you essentially want every decision being made by a mass of people who will have little to no knowledge of what they are voting on and are completely incapable of understanding or predicting the repercussions of their actions while drowning out completely the much smaller crowd of people who actually do know about the subject completely.

It would be the worst, most inefficient, and least stable form of government imaginable.

Is that what we’ve already got?

[DarkHunter]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Is that what we’ve already got?

Yes and no, right now America is in a weird state between the two.

In theory, by being a republic and not a democracy, America should be electing representatives that are already educated on the matters or can quickly learn them.  The problem is that it isnt really happening but on the somewhat bright side is that the people getting elected are good at getting elected which means that while they might not even be half decent at what they do they can't completely and utterly blow it either and continue to win election unlike having a direct democracy which would just result in one massive failure after another.

This is going to be a really unpopular idea but the problem is that too many people are allowed to vote.  The founding fathers had the right general idea in limiting who can vote, limiting it only to white land owning males over the age of 21 though was not a good idea but expanding it to all citizens over the age of 18 is an equally bad idea.  By expanding it to the entire citizen population it turns elections from being who is the best candidate to who is the most popular candidate and rarely are those two things the same thing.  Not saying that limiting who can vote would always guarantee the best candidate wins but it does reduce the popularity contest aspect of it significantly.

A massive problem though is that the world as it is currently is far too complex for any one individual to have a good understanding of all aspects of it to effectively govern.

Ultimately America is in a weird state where politicians win based on how popular they are instead of their ability but to remain popular enough to win they cant be complete failures at their job.

[ellapenella]

Can anyone explain  the federal  district of Columbia's role in America's congress?

 

[Gromdor]

16 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Can anyone explain  the federal  district of Columbia's role in America's congress?

 

Well originally the capital was in Philadelphia but a mob of angry soldiers went there demanding payment for their service in the Revolutionary War.  Congress wanted the governor to call in the state militia, but he was sympathetic to the soldiers.  The congressmen then decided that having a state control the capital was a bad thing so they created Washington DC as the capital, separate from any state.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783

[Farmer77]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 11:41 AM, DarkHunter said:

So you essentially want every decision being made by a mass of people who will have little to no knowledge of what they are voting on and are completely incapable of understanding or predicting the repercussions of their actions while drowning out completely the much smaller crowd of people who actually do know about the subject completely.

It would be the worst, most inefficient, and least stable form of government imaginable.

You just precisely described the US government now. 

EXCEPT that mass of people voting (congress) are being paid off by corporate interests so when they do actually vote it has nothing to do with right or wrong, or logic or the will of the people. 

[preacherman76]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 12:57 PM, acute said:

Welcome to Brexit!

The UK rejecting the idea that they should be ruled by tyrants who are not accountable to them is a uniformed decision? Ruled by people who not only are not accountable to them, but who never agreed to be ruled by these people to begin with? Not the best example there acute.

[ellapenella]

6 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Well originally the capital was in Philadelphia but a mob of angry soldiers went there demanding payment for their service in the Revolutionary War.  Congress wanted the governor to call in the state militia, but he was sympathetic to the soldiers.  The congressmen then decided that having a state control the capital was a bad thing so they created Washington DC as the capital, separate from any state.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783

So, Capital City is sort of like how Vatican City is. The district of Columbia is Federal City , who is Federal? I'm so confused about this.

 

eta

The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifies that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people.

 

Although the District of Columbia has its own municipal government, it receives funding from the federal government and relies on directives from Congress to approve its laws and budget. DC residents have only had the right to vote for the President since 1964 and for the Mayor and city council members since 1973. Unlike states who can appoint their own local judges, the President appoints judges for the District Court. For more information, read DC Government 101 - Things to Know About DC Laws, Agencies and More

https://www.tripsavvy.com/is-the-district-of-columbia-a-state-1038984

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

6 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

You just precisely described the US government now. 

EXCEPT that mass of people voting (congress) are being paid off by corporate interests so when they do actually vote it has nothing to do with right or wrong, or logic or the will of the people. 

Who pays congress their salary? Is it the Federal  district of Columbia? Are the Federal district territory of Columbia an American entity ?

[Farmer77]

Just now, Ellapennella said:

Who pays congress their salary? Is it the Federal  district of Columbia? Are the Federal district territory of Columbia an American entity ?

The US taxpayer pays congress' salary. 

Yes the District of Columbia is American it is just a city which sits outside the border of any states so the legalese surrounding it is a little different than the rest of the nation. 

[ellapenella]

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The US taxpayer pays congress' salary. 

Yes the District of Columbia is American it is just a city which sits outside the border of any states so the legalese surrounding it is a little different than the rest of the nation. 

So, the Federal reserve and the Federal district are different entities? 

[ellapenella]

The creation of the federal democracy within the boundaries of Washington dc and the right to contract...through which if we were irresponsible we would contract to receive rights from that federal democracy and this in return give up our freedom. 

From about point 104: in the interview. 

[aztek]

Just now, DarkHunter said:

So you essentially want every decision being made by a mass of people who will have little to no knowledge of what they are voting on and are completely incapable of understanding or predicting the repercussions of their actions while drowning out completely the much smaller crowd of people who actually do know about the subject completely.

It would be the worst, most inefficient, and least stable form of government imaginable.

right because out representatives know everything there is no know? and right now work in most efficient, way making most stable gvmnt imaginable????

NOT REALLY,  wrong on all counts. 

what you trying to scare us with, is what we actually have right now

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

right because out representatives know everything there is no know? and right now work in most efficient, way making most stable gvmnt imaginable????

NOT REALLY,  wrong on all counts. 

what you trying to scare us with, is what we actually have right now

In theory the representatives should be the most capable ones elected but currently they aren't.  The main reason they arent the most capable ones is because by allowing all citizens to vote elections have turned into popularity contest.

Like I said before the only silver lining is that for the politicians to remain popular enough to keep getting elected they cant fail horribly so while not getting the best normally the absolute worst are avoided or removed quickly.

[aztek]

Just now, DarkHunter said:

In theory the representatives should be the most capable ones elected but currently they aren't.  The main reason they arent the most capable ones is because by allowing all citizens to vote elections have turned into popularity contest.

Like I said before the only silver lining is that for the politicians to remain popular enough to keep getting elected they cant fail horribly so while not getting the best normally the absolute worst are avoided or removed quickly.

yea pretty much, it is not whether they are capable or not, we know they are not,  the problem is that they make decision based on their political agenda, even if they know better. even bigger problem they are next to impossible to remove, i'm not even talking about removing in timely manner, it takes many  years or decades for "vote them out" to catch up with them. in most cases it does not.

Edited April 10, 2018 by aztek

[Wistman]

The deregulation of the democratic institutions and organs of government, begun by Reagan and the republicans, metastaticized by Clinton and his newly polished up DLC (who are still in control of democratic party), furthered along by the Republicans and many 'third way' Democrats all through the administrations of Bush and Obama, have reduced our society to dis/misinformed fools fighting over scraps while the global elite drive the country into a state of chaos and bankruptcy, while they take everything that isn't nailed down for themselves.  Completely predictable.  That's why there were so many protections (read: regulations) instituted to begin with.  If our news organizations and public institutions had not been massively corrupted after being massively deregulated for the past three decades, things now would be quite different.  IMO.