You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia [S] ago 

I really hate that argument, it's stupid even in theory and it breeds complacency, making people think they're actually protected by pieces or paper and "wise" leaders.

The fact is that, in a society with a government, someone is holding the power. Whether it's the general poplace or some elite is irrelevant, either way they have the ability to become tyrannous. And once they decide to do so, no amount of constitutional restraints will stop them. Just look at the second amendment.

0
0

[–] Mediocrity ago 

I'm not arguing anything.

I'm pointing out that the fact we are structured as a republic removes the outright mob rule that plagues direct democracy. All that other stuff is still there. And your original idea is pretty terrible. Here's why:

In order to do what you're suggesting, we would need a way to track every citizen, and their vote. In the current system (where we actually have voter ID laws), you show a photo ID, and are given a ballot. Your name gets crossed off a list, so the pollsters know you already voted.

In the scenario you're suggesting, the Feds would need to keep a living record of every voting age citizen. Meaning they would have to keep a big list of who had voted for whom and how old that vote is. And, of course, the system you're suggesting is directly democratic, since you are combining the idea of a voter tally with an approval rating. Basing the election on any public official on polls is just a bad idea - polls are always fickle.

Example: Kenyan gets kicked out of office. Killdawg gets elected. She doesn't fix everything right away, and the polls suddenly sway to the Donald. He gets elected. He doesn't fix everything right away. He gets ousted. All of this happens in the space of 3 months. This is problematic. And you think political ads are bad now? How bad do you think it will get when campaign season literally never ends?

What we have now is the best we've got. And yes, it's a republic. Which is not a meaningless distinction, no matter how much you like to think it is.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia [S] ago 

I'm not arguing anything.

Pretty sure you are...

I'm pointing out that the fact we are structured as a republic removes the outright mob rule that plagues direct democracy. All that other stuff is still there.

Correct, it removes some power from the mob and gives it to someone elected by the mob, or possibly not elected by the mob at all. Will that person act more responsibly than the mob? Probably not.

And your original idea is pretty terrible. Here's why:

It's pretty terrible because it's democratic (or republican, depending on what word games you play) not for any of the reasons you mentioned.

In order to do what you're suggesting, we would need a way to track every citizen, and their vote. In the current system (where we actually have voter ID laws), you show a photo ID, and are given a ballot. Your name gets crossed off a list, so the pollsters know you already voted.

The government should be tracking each citizen's vote anyway. The fact that this isn't already done in the US is pretty much unique among first world nations.

Example: Kenyan gets kicked out of office. Killdawg gets elected. She doesn't fix everything right away, and the polls suddenly sway to the Donald. He gets elected. He doesn't fix everything right away. He gets ousted. All of this happens in the space of 3 months. This is problematic. And you think political ads are bad now? How bad do you think it will get when campaign season literally never ends?

I covered that above. Politician's approval ratings usually don't dip in the first few months of office unless they do something absolutely nuts. So long as they can show they're working on what they promised they usually don't lose supporters.

What we have now is the best we've got. And yes, it's a republic. Which is not a meaningless distinction, no matter how much you like to think it is.

It is an absolutely meaningless distinction and you are a perfect example of the danger of complacency I mentioned above: You seem to genuinely think that the "checks and balances" are working and that you're protected from anyone who goes gunning for your rights. You're not. The constitution is a piece of paper any president/congress can wipe their ass with if they so choose and the supreme court is a stacked deck.

And no, what you have now is not the best possible system, far from it. Any government based system will inevitably end up as shitty as any other one.