Should American Democracy continue as it has or is it time for a change?

[everythingsxen]

Poll question: Should American Democracy continue as it has or is it time for a change?

Please do not take this as an attack on Democrats or Republicans. It is, I suppose an attack on the system itself, as it exists now. Right now in America we essentially have a choice: vote blue or vote red. Issues are irrelevant, just pick a color and stand by it. That does not seem to me how things are supposed to be. It certainly does not seem like a real democracy.

This poll is not a trap, there is no hidden agenda here. I am simply asking you, the reader, to vote your conscience.

The choices:

1. AS IS: You believe that the voting process in America, as it is, is fine and does not need to be changed.
   
2. PARLIAMENTARY: You believe that we should change our political model to European or Canadian Parliamentary style system where you vote for a party. There are other models, please add your input.
   
3. DIRECT: You believe the representational part of our democracy should be removed and we the people should vote directly in elections on issues.
   
4. OTHER: If I have to explain this, then God help us all.
   

[More Than A Feeling]

1. Public financing and non-partisan redistricting nationwide.

Then voters will choose their representatives, rather than representatives choosing their voters, and political influence won't depend on how much money you have. Then the current system would function much better.

[everythingsxen]

2. True that would make for vast improvements.

I lean towards the idea of direct democracy. It just seems more "in the spirit" of what a democracy should be, to me at least. I have little faith in people though, so I suspect it would not work well.

[More Than A Feeling]

With public financing, referendums would work much better.

Proponents of referendums would have to rely on the grassroots rather than a few wealthy supporters. They'd stand a much greater chance of passing. We could have a lot more of them, and add a little more direct democracy to the current system too.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Direct democracy is unworkable.

There's a reason that it's not practised on a national scale anywhere in the world.

A parliamentary system with proportional representation would be the most democratic of the options that actually had a chance of functioning, I think.

[everythingsxen]

5. I don't know that it is "unworkable"

with the tech level we have, however it is highly impractical. It was the only other option of Democracy I could think of though, so I put it in the poll. Plus I am somewhat biased toward the option, because in an ideal world I would like it to be that way. (Warning objects in mirror may be less than ideal)

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. It's workable on a LOCAL level...

with the New England town meeting being the best example I can think of. But on a NATIONAL level, it wouldn't work. Direct democracy usually only works with relative social, cultural and economic homogeneity. Those things don't exist across the entire United States, so direct democracy would actually end up being in some respects UNdemocratic for some people, because their local interests would end up being overruled on a national level.

[everythingsxen]

10. Well, as I said,

in a perfect world...

But yes, I do understand the pitfalls of direct democracy.

[Mist]

4. I voted for "parliamentary" but I've wondered about the feasibility of

voting directly for the budget each year. Politicians become too compromised by having the power of the purse. Perhaps citizens would have more practicality.

[porphyrian]

6. As is, but with Instant Runoff Voting and campaign finance reform.

As long as our government can be bought by the lobbyists with the loosest checkbook, we have no Democracy at all.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. IRV and condorcet are interesting...

do you think that many Americans are really jonesing to vote for a third party?

[porphyrian]

8. Ask me that again in a year or so. - n/t

[Codeblue]

11. Parliamentary

though we'd still need more of a choice than red or blue. There absolutely needs to be more than two parties who have a chance to win the election.

[everythingsxen]

12. Exactly

The Democrats and Republicans are fine for some people, but I cannot see how they represent everyone. And they are so large that it is virtually an impossibility to get other parties elected.

[Tyo]

13. Definitely parliamentary

And I'd even go so far as to ask the British monarchy if they'd take us back. We need a professional head-of-state so that we can let the politicians be politicians. No one can tell me that Queen Elizabeth can't do the head-of-state thing far better than Dubya or even Bill Clinton. The functions are different. Even Charles and Camilla would be a marked improvement.

[Codeblue]

14. Also the semi-presidential system

could fulfill this role. There is a President who is elected by the parliament and a Prime Minister who is appointed by the President. I think this kind of system could also work. The French use this system as well as several other countries.

[Odin2005]

19. Actually, the French president is elected by popular vote IIRC.

IIRC in a Semi-Presidential system the Prime Minister is typically the Chief Executive/Head of Government while the President is Head of State, Commander-in-Chief of the millitary, and the chief diplomat

[Codeblue]

20. Corrected

Yes, I mixed it all up. Thank you.

[Selatius]

15. I vote for DISSOLVING the United States of America

People would be better served if government was more closely controlled by its citizens, and the best way to do that would be to break up the nation into several smaller regional nations because it's clear, at least to me, that Americans no longer identify with each other much beyond simply the appellation of being "American." You can be living in rural Mississippi and find a totally different environment in southern California both as far as cultural views and politics go.

The US Constitution is a document written for A COUNTRY THAT NO LONGER EXISTS. We are not a nation of 13 states anymore, nor are we a nation that claims to be agrarian or a nation that claims to be only several tens of millions in size. We are an economic hegemon, an empire, with 300,000,000 souls fed by the rape and exploitation of resources taken from many poorer nations who can't defend themselves from Wall Street bankers and industrialists looking for easily manipulated sweatshop labor.

Any constitutional convention called should only discuss:

1. Proportional representation (you can call it a "parliamentary" system, I guess, although it's not the same as the UK system, which is why I am hesitant to call it that myself) or a mixed system away from the two-party, first-past-the-post voting system. The two-party system we get with single-seat constituent representation is a sick joke. Junk the Senate. We won't need it with smaller-sized nations.

2. Dissolution of the US and the redrawing of national boundaries based only on geographic realities. For example, I don't think a nation should be drawn up that is landlocked. I also don't think it's a good idea to create a nation-state that includes the former states of Massachusetts and Mississippi under the same government or any combination of "hick + left coast" states. I favor smaller regional/geographic nation-states.

3. Corporations have no human rights. Not freedom of speech, not anything.

4. Only public money for political campaigns. If you accept private cash. You will be prosecuted for bribery.

5. Re-affirmation of the Bill of Rights.

[Odin2005]

17. I think you are exaggerating the regional differences

The whole "red state/blue state" nonsense is BS concocted by the MSM, we are just different shades of purple, our winner-takes all election system makes the country look more divided then it actually is. IMO the regional differences have become LESS pronounced then in the past. The main differences are between the socially liberal inner cities and inner suburbs on one hand and the socially conservative rural areas, outer suburbs, and exurbs; good luck trying to carve THIS into several countries:





Balkanization is moronic, it only helps the Neo-Liberal Corporatists divide and conquer.

[Selatius]

21. The neolibs have pretty much done all the damage they have with our current unified structure.

Trying to buy out several nation-states with strong protections on public campaigns is a lot more difficult than buying out one government that rules them all. It's probably why Western Europe has done better with fending off Neoliberals than we have. And much credit goes to the Socialists for raining on their parades over there and for killing the EU Constitution. You call it balkanization. I call it making it even harder for them to introduce the North American Union.

[Pyrzqxgl]

23. Yeah, then we can refight the Civil War. Thats a good idea.

I haven't been on DU too long but thats about the dumbest entry I've ever read. We'd find 50 reasons to hate each other in short order, I keep wishing those damned bug eyed monsters from Aldabaran IV would invade so the whole world could get together with a commen reason for doing so. After we chase them off (w. Slim Whitman records of course) we'd all find out that we had more in commen than different. Maybe the Bill of Rights could be adopted world wide.Only a Dream, but at least it's not a Nightmare like the one Selattius just posted.

[Selatius]

24. OK, how about you offer a counter proposal.

If felt enough to even respond to the thread, then at least offer up a solution of your own rather than rip a fellow poster.

[AJ9000]

16. Instant run-off elections, proportional representaion, and public campaign financing for elections

would do most of what it will take to fix our government.

And we must do away with any laws that help perpetuate the 2 party system.

[Odin2005]

18. A parliamentary system similar to Germany's

I've grown rather fond of Germany's constitution, something simlar would work very well here. Add instanst run-off voting to that and it would be nearly perfect.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. The Process Is Fine Theoretically. It Is The Financing Of The Campaigns That's The Problem.

And if you think that it only comes down to blue or red, and that millions of voters don't actually choose a candidate based on who they think is best, then you are truly ignorant as to the reality of elections. There is a core base of each party that generally will vote party line. But there is a HUGE middle that go from side to side from election to election or even within the same election, based on who they consider to be the best choice. To make a declaration that our current process forces you into party loyalty and that's all that matters, is completely false and absurd.

For example, even in the last election some morons still voted for the greens. So just that alone proves your theory false.