From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: What if America were a direct democracy?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:24:18 GMT

In article <farenebt.715573893@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>
>Well, I guess the subject is pretty self-explainitory (sic?). The proposition
>was brought up in my American politics class. most people including the
>prof seemed to think it was a good idea. The idea was to have both sides
>of an issue presented on the 6:30 news. The news would bring in two debaters
>(one from each side) and they would slug it out.

     How can you make sure the news provides adequete debates.  What if
the news station (with, perhaps, its own political agenda) decided to
invite an articulate, excellent debater for one side and a real moron for
the other?
     It's also been noted that people, in elections, tend to vote for the
guy who sounded better last.  (Sort of the historical explanation behind
convention-bounce.)

>It was use technology so
>that Americans would be allowed to cast their vote afterwards by pressing
>a thing that came up ont heir tv screen afterwards. I brought up the obvious
>question about voter fraud. The class thought that there had to be some way
>to do this (ie have everyone type in ss number or something like that). I still
>don't think it's feasible nor do I think it's a very good idea. I don't think
>that the concept of direct democracy is going to help the country. When I vote
>for someone, I do so with the understanding that he/she may not agree with me
>on every single issue but I take the good with the bad and choose the one
>how most closely represents my views. The opposite argument is that in a direct
>democracy, your views are even more directly represented. I'm sure there must
>be some thoughts on that, pro and con. Please email me.

     Have you considered that directly turning the view of the majority
into law may, itself, not be a very good idea?  What limits are you going
to place on th majority's lawmaking ability?  Any?  (Under such a government,
for instance, and Constitution would become irrelevent, because a majority
vote could simply change it.)
     Unless we assume that there are some things the majority could not
vote on (which seems in opposition to the idea of true democracy) then
people will essentially have no rights, since those rights could be
taken away at the whim of the majority.  (Imagine being a black in
a culture where you are 12% and the majority doesn't like you.  Or
Homosexual, or whatever.)
     Besides all this, the average voter is not likely to be well informed
on all the possible subjects that might come up.  You'll end up moving
more things from direct vote into the bureacracy, simply because many
decisions have to be made and the fickle public will end up reversing
its decision eveyr couple of days.
     Then there's the nightmare of deciding what exactly comes up for
public vote.  If anybody could submit a bill then the system will be
swamped.  Somebody will get a bill passed making themselves dictator
simply because there is some much volume nobody noticed.
     Will there be an elected body to determine what comes up
for public vote?  (And if so, what has happened to your direct
democracy?)
     What if one part of the country wants to impose unreasonable
restrictions on another?  Imagine the kind of voting bloc New York
or LA would be.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc