A modernized form of democracy should be the goal of every society

Allow me to apologize to my opponent. I was unaware that the debate I was entering into was in the form of a Lincoln Douglas debate. As the majority of debates on this site are of a standardized form where the person making the resolution has to prove his resolution. I felt no need to add an alternative to my opponents plans and instead felt the need to refute my opponent's arguments. This not being the case I apologize. However in the case of my opponent's weak definition of a "modern democracy", I do anything but apologize. My opponent made no clause that Chinese society was inequivalent of "today's societies" as is the direct quote. Simply because Chinese society does not operate under a democracy (and yes I am very aware of their governmental system) however this does not exclude them from being "today's society" Additionally I did not provide a definition of a "modernized democracy" simply because there is no real definition of what it means, it is an opinionated definition and I did not want to distort the value by changing your opinion of what a modernized democracy is. If in your opinion a "modernized democracy" is a democratic republic resembling the United States, then next time acknowledge that rather than blowing smoke about how a modernized democracy is what every society on the planet thinks it is. Next my opponent goes on to attempt to recover the mistake of assuming people vote because it "makes them happy" by stating: If you are happy that the person you voted for won, then the process of voting inherently makes you happy. Voting for somebody that will put forth legislation that will make your life easier also inherently increases your happiness, thus this argument can stand This further assumption does nothing but attempt to (allow me to put it colloquially) put perfume on a skunk. My opponent does not account that the majority (if there are more than 2 candidates running) do not get their opinion represented simply because the candidate in question does not win. Under my opponent's second false assumption, voting in this case makes them sad because they are sad the person who they voted for lost. Therefore according to my opponent a majority of people vote because they are sad. Next my opponent completely breaks his own rules of argument in ironically the same paragraph. He states "I stand by my observation of the moral obligation. The resolution states 'should'. For example, we should rid the world of starvation, but that action >>>is not possible and does not work<<<. Every Society should strive for a modernized democracy, but that action is not possible and does not work -->>>>>>>> A 'Utopian' government sounds nice, however it is (a) impossible<<<<<<<<<<< My opponent confuses me in many respects. He first states that this debate isn't about whether the form of government can work or not. Then he denies that a Utopian government is not valid because it can not work. Additionally whether it has been tried or not is not the point. The point of this argument is whether it "SHOULD" be done or not. My opponent then goes on to concede that in a modernized democracy AKA a democratic republic the majority of societies views are not represented. Should not we strive for a form of government where every persons views about every subject are represented? In my form of government called the Utopian government. Everyone's views would be represented and everyone would be educated about every view. Is this not the form of government we should strive for over a form of government that does not represent the will of the people? My opponent has conceded that "modernized democracy" does not represent the bulk of society's views as I have proven. Since he sticks by his "should" policy. Then should not we strive for a form of government that represents everyone's views regardless of whether it will work or not? My opponent resorts to one liners about a military dictatorship which is not the idea I proposed about a Utopian government. In summation my opponent then attempts to convolute my argument by saying my form of government isn't acceptable because it is impossible. However this defies my opponents resolution that it does not matter if it is impossible or not but whether we should strive for it. My opponent does not defend my argument that a democratic republic does not only not represent all citizens views about everything, but doesn't even represent the majority's views about everything. Instead he states this: "Democracy best deals with those issues because the will of the people is kept in mind." However I do have to ask the voters of this debate one question and it is a simple one. Should we be complacent and accept that we will at least be kept in mind by the people we elect (example: President Bush) or >>should<< we strive to work towards a form of government that not only keeps in mind the will of the people but IS the will of the people. That the actions of our government are the equivalent of peoples will and that our will is not just an afterthought! My opponent has ignored his own resolution in striking down my proposed government that is inherently better than the current system he is supporting which he concedes does not equate the will of the people. I ask the voters of this site to decide. Thank you.