Do we really need (this much) representative government anymore?

History buffs, help me out, here: Back when the Consitiution was being debated there were two factions - ones who wanted more "top-down" rule (John Adams types) and the Ben Franklin types who wanted more bottom-up democracy. The ideological split (more of a spectrum that we stil have today) is primarily based on how much trust we have in "We The People" to govern ourselves. And - to a greater extent at the time - how efficient we want our government to run. The democratic republic was sort of a compromise.

OK, I could see how a Democratic Republic could have been a really good idea back in the 1700's, when people had to ride horses with votes in their pouch or whatever they did to tally results.

Now we can count votes in national elections in one night (or not, but we're just being theoretical here anyways, so pretend like we have fair elections for a minute). So what purpose does our various layers of "Lords and Commoners" that comprise our legislature really serve in modern times?

In state elections we have ballot measures brought directly from the voters, to the voters & I can't exactly say that it's brought us better laws, but it is more democratic in theory at least.

But to get a law through Congress, something has to go through committee, then the house, then the Senate, then probably back to the house, and by the time it's ready for a vote, the original bill is hardly recognizable after every congressperson has put their greasy thumbprints all over it. Hardly more efficient.

then there's the debate on how much your trust the Americans to control a true democracy. Could it possibly be more corrupt than the congress we have now?

Could a more democratic system of proposing laws that come directly from voters take care of some of the problems we're facing with every possible abuse of power being seen in every branch of government?

I know it would be chaotic, but how much do you trust Democracy to fix the problems caused by our Democratic Republic???

Discuss

but the players within. The "grassroots" are not contributing or paying attention as they need to to perform oversight. As a result, the politicians run amok, turnning US Capitols into their own playgrounds.

With this in mind, the growing popularity of publically sponsored the same thing for special interest groups. Groups like focus on the family and other tax crusadors are using the referendum to get their agenda implemented, piece by piece. How are they able to accomplish this? Eligible voters are not participating in the process, When they do, they rarely possess or exert the brain power to figure out what this shit really means to them.

Edit to add: When the people decide they want to participate I will consider direct Democracy, until then, I prefer people that will at least pretend to represent me, and defend my interests.

like states do? Not replacing the house, but there to propose and pass things that Congress never would.

We don't need less, if anything we need more. The problem with the bill process is that there are no rules governing what a bill can cover and controlling amendments. If amendments were forbidden and that each bill was to address a single issue then things might run smoother.

I think we should double or even triple the size of the house, even have districts that cross state lines. In this time of computers, districts should be able to be drawn without consideration of party affiliation, just by computer.

Direct democracy is definitely more 'democratic' but would be very dangerous given the current climate. What if someone like ann coulter and her ilk could get a bill passed to execute all liberals, or if Falwells Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign was legislated into law? I realize that some of these kinds of things are dangerously close to coming to pass with our current version of a democratic republic, but think how much easier it would be without the congress.

it's not like Congress is protecting us from any of that stuff now.

and in any case, the Constitution isn't doing too well these days. I do not trust the masses so much right now. I'd like to believe that they wouldn't sell out the least among us, but they will, just as our reps in Congress have. I don't think any major changes should happen to the framework laid out in the Constitution unless we can get back to status quo ante Bush at LEAST.

I agree that "the people" are all over the place. I'm really suggesting the addition of national ballot measures side-by-side with legislative stuff.

To get a national ballot pushed through - or nixed - based on less-than-noble intentions, the righties would have to spend alot more money than they do now in paying of a few members of Congress.

thanks for clarifying. For me it would depend on how it would be set up and administered.... until we get all(or any) of the voting issues cleared up it won't change anything.

from illegal wars.

Just when I thought that humans had out lived the need for Kings, Queens, Prime Ministers and Presidents along came cable 24/7 to do the thinking for the mindless zombies that has invaded our country.

who does our government represent?

we have an unelected President who is selected by electors of the state. If Ohio voters are equally split between Kerry and Bush, why did every elector for Ohio go to Bush? If Gore won the 2000 election by over half a million votes, then why did Bush win the Electoral College by five votes? Representative government..I think not!

Montana doesn't have enough voters for one Congressional district, yet they have two Senators. California also has two Senators, but enough voters for 53 Congressional districts. As another poster stated, true Representative government would mean members of the House would be elected from population based districts that cross state lines. Each state would have just as many Senators as it does Congressional districts, and Presidential Electors wouldn't be appointed on a plurality takes all basis.

Our government would be "too representative" only if the Supreme Court Justices were elected by popular vote, the President had no veto power, and members of the Senate minority didn't have the power to filibuster.

This comment doesn't offer any solutions but is meant to address the OP's claim that much of our government today comes from the dichotomy of "trust in the people to govern themselves" vs. "efficiency." (I am paraphrasing here; if you disagree with the results, let me know.)

That wasn't the primary dichotomy: rather, it was states' power vs. federal power (ever read The Federalist papers?). After the revolutionary war was over, the former colonies established the Articles of Conferation, which provided for an exceedingly loose conferation of the colonies/states. The discussion surrounding the Constitution dealt with the realization that we needed a stronger central government to exist. Period. But that meant that states had to give up some of their powers and acquiese to a federal power, which may not do things exactly the way any given state had been.

The US Constitution's establishment of a bicameral legislature was one way to balance the strong-federal people (the House, where larger states have more representation) and the strong-state people (the Senate, where each state has the same number of representatives, regardless of population).

Efficiency wasn't the dominant theme when creating the Constitution.