The U.S. Government

[Phaedrus]

The U.S. is being run by a government that no longer represents the people.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gover...XfwWH5YJXs

[Minimalist]

You know what,  this was bullshit when Lincoln said it.




Special interests have been gumming up the works almost since the beginning.  The "Era of Good Feeling" is a slogan - not a reality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, yeah.

[Glossophile]

The U.S. is being run by a government that no longer represents the people.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gover...XfwWH5YJXs

And this is supposed to be news?

I think there's a bit of a paradox here.  Between the Electoral College and the corporate oligarchy, the true will of the people isn't implemented nearly as often or as fully as it should be.  At the same time, the Republicans in Congress keep their lips glued to Trump's posterior presumably because they're afraid of alienating his die-hard supporters, a group that's just big enough to make them pay attention. In a twisted way, it's an oddly reassuring demonstration that the people still have some sway, even if that sway is limited and/or skewed by corruption.  If that sway were completely unfiltered by unscrupulous mediators, like it should be, we'd be living under a second President Clinton now.  Not ideal by any means, but easily preferable over the current Douchebag-in-Chief.

Or maybe Congressional Republicans are kept in line more by plutocrats who benefit from Trump's economic policies and have essentially bought out the Senate.  I'm no expert, and frankly, the whole situation still boggles my mind whenever I really think about it.

[jerryg]

As long as the people we elect are in charge of making the decisions it's a representative government. We elect people to make the decisions for us. We don't have a direct democracy, where they have to do what the majority says.

And that's a good thing, because as a populous, we're stupid and lack information needed to make informed decisions. Not that the government necessarily knows/does better, but the option to go against 'the will of the people' if an elected official feels it is in the country's best interests is a feature of our government not a bug.

[brewerb]

All I see in my head is Dennis and some lovely filth.

Could you please provide a moistened bint.

[Deesse23]

We don't have a direct democracy, where they have to do what the majority says.

Wrong. In both cases the will of the majority is binding. Thats what democracy is all about.

I am surprised though that this needs to be explained to people who consider themselves to live in the *best* democracy out there.

In a democracy the elected officials are supposed to do exactly what the majoriy wants, in terms of following the policy they advocated and were elected for. In a direct democracy the electorate decides directly about (some, not all) single issues.

Example:
In a democracy a party adovates for immigration control. It gets elected. it is supposed to control immigration, but can decide by what means.
In a direct democracy a public vote is held about building a wall, which is supposed to control immigration. When a majority has voted for the wall, the wall is supposed to be built.

[Minimalist]

And that's a good thing, because as a populous, we're stupid and lack information needed to make informed decisions.

Stop watching FOX and maybe you'll get smarter..... although I doubt it.

[jerryg]

We don't have a direct democracy, where they have to do what the majority says.

Wrong. In both cases the will of the majority is binding. Thats what democracy is all about.  

I am surprised though that this needs to be explained to people who consider themselves to live in the *best* democracy out there.

In a democracy the elected officials are supposed to do exactly what the majoriy wants, in terms of following the policy they advocated and were elected for. In a direct democracy the electorate decides directly about  (some, not all) single issues.

Example:
In a democracy a party adovates for immigration control. It gets elected. it is supposed to control immigration, but can decide by what means.
In a direct democracy a public vote is held about building a wall, which is supposed to control immigration. When a majority has voted for the wall, the wall is supposed to be built.

The elected officials are supposed to represent the interests of the people. That includes making unpopular decisions when they deem necessary.  This is pretty common knowledge.

[Deesse23]

We don't have a direct democracy, where they have to do what the majority says.

Wrong. In both cases the will of the majority is binding. Thats what democracy is all about.  

I am surprised though that this needs to be explained to people who consider themselves to live in the *best* democracy out there.

In a democracy the elected officials are supposed to do exactly what the majoriy wants, in terms of following the policy they advocated and were elected for. In a direct democracy the electorate decides directly about  (some, not all) single issues.

Example:
In a democracy a party adovates for immigration control. It gets elected. it is supposed to control immigration, but can decide by what means.
In a direct democracy a public vote is held about building a wall, which is supposed to control immigration. When a majority has voted for the wall, the wall is supposed to be built.

The elected officials are supposed to represent the interests of the people. That includes making unpopular decisions when they deem necessary.  This is pretty common knowledge.

In a direct democracy the representatives also can make unpopular decisions. The distinction you were trying to make does not exist.

[SYZ]

The rort-infested Australian government in concert with the multi-national corporatists
are now a duopoly that defines our so-called democracy.  The first thing to disappear
under a democracy is democracy itself.

[jerryg]

In a direct democracy the representatives also can make unpopular decisions. The distinction you were trying to make does not exist.

What representatives?  Direct democracies are just majority rules votes.

Should we invade Spain?  Let's all vote on it.  If more than half say yes, we invade Spain.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In a direct democracy the representatives also can make unpopular decisions. The distinction you were trying to make does not exist.

What representatives?  Direct democracies are just majority rules votes.

Should we invade Spain?  Let's all vote on it.  If more than half say yes, we invade Spain.

Worst case, for Spain, is if we don't invade.