jtfanclub, on Aug 16 2006, 10:07 AM, said:
We live in a Republic, which is kinda, sorta, a little like a Democracy. Back in the low-tech days, you couldn't really have a Democracy in an area bigger than a city. Nowadays, it isn't out of the question to have a real, honest-to-God Democracy, but I don't think anybody's going to do it.
While we may have the technology for this, don't fool yourself into thinking that this would really produce a true democracy. Just as in most other areas of life, it's necessary to delegate work. We can't all vote on everything, any more than we can all build our own homes, sew our own clothes, or grow our own food. Running a state or country is a full-time job, so we can't all participate in it and also do our regular work. Even most small towns that used to govern by Town Meeting have given up on this -- my town now uses a Representative Town Meeting system, which I think means anyone may speak at the meetings, but only the representatives can vote.
And even if this weren't a problem, could anything really get done if it involved debates among millions of people? Talk about "too many cooks"!
So a representative system is likely to be the closest that's possible to get to a democracy. As someone pointed out, the problem is that we don't really get a good choice of representatives -- you're often choosing the lesser of evils, rather than electing someone who really represents your views. Nothing in the world really measures up to its ideals, so why should government be any different? But I still think that this is the only form that at least has a shot at coming close. At least we get to choose the LESSER evil -- in any other form, you're stuck with whatever evil is in power (or if he gets sick you get his brother).
Who was it who said "this is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"?