Would the U.S government be better if it were a more direct democracy?

History

1 answer:

blagie [28]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

I don't know...call me crazy, but I don't think this would be such a bad idea (at least sometime in the future.) With the advent of the internet, there really is no reason why people can't have more input on legislation. Remember, congressmen act as representatives of the people for logistical reasons. Were voting allowed via internet, mail, or permanent polling places, the logistical roadblocks are reduced.

This country has an annoying quality where senators and representatives are elected and then inject their own personality into their voting. They are supposed to represent the people of their district. If 60% of the people in their district feel a certain way about an issue, why is the congressman/woman allowed to vote a different way? Why do their personal beliefs really matter at all? They are supposed to be voting the way their district wants regardless of what they personally believe.

I know, I know, things can be horribly complicated and the average person can't possibly understand all the issues they are voting on, but last I checked their is no intelligence requirement to be in the government...many people in governement now are dumb as a box of rocks. They don't have to be smart to be elected, they have to be personable and have good advisors working in the background.

Imagine being able to directly vote on education issues, warfare issues, and being able to prioritize budget items. Instead of blaming the morons in congress we would only be able to blame ourselves when things went horribly wrong. Of course, some form of standing governement would still be needed for a lot of reasons.

Again, I know the technology is not hot enough right now to provide the secruity that would be needed, etc, but it won't be long...

You might be interested in

Need answer asap!!! In this lesson, we learned how a scheme by several businessmen to control the copper market affected the ent

slava [35]

Answer:

Student answer will vary and may include hardships from job loss for the workers and their families. Answers should include the idea that as workers at the factory lose their jobs they and their families will reduce their spending. This reduction will hurt other businesses that will then need to lay-off employees, reduce hours, or delay hiring. Those newly affected will, in turn, reduce their spending causing hardship to other businesses in the town.

Explanation:

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

how were the economic affects of England’s constitutional monarchy different from those of the absolute monarchies of Spain and

Dominik [7]

Answer:

The monarchs of Spain and France were enormously wealthy, while those of England were on a par with the nobles.

Explanation:

8 0

3 years ago

Name one area that is not represented by a cabinet position in which you think the president might need advice.

Brilliant_brown [7]

Answer:

Secretary of Defense. ...

8 0

3 years ago

According to the Communist Manifesto, what would finally happen to the Bourgeoisie?

solong [7]

Answer:

Marxism came from the the writing of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles. They wrote the communist manifesto and Das Kapital, the ideas mentioned in these books came to be known as Marxism. According to Marx and Engles the common workers were <em>proletariat</em> and those who held power in the society were <em>bourgeoisie</em>, the society was always divided into classes and the bourgeoisie has always exploited the proletariat. The struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat has been going on in all of history. They both believed that in a perfect world these classes wont't exist and bourgeoisie would disappear.

5 0

3 years ago

Why was Lincoln forced to keep replacing his generals during the early years of the Civil War?

m_a_m_a [10]

Hey there!
The answer is A. because As promising as the Union outlook was at the beginning of the year, there would be many problems before 1863 ended. Lincoln would be forced to deal with numerous commanders who failed to understand that the main objective/idea of the Union military machine should be defeating the Confederate armies, not merely occupying enemy territory. Lincoln often had to beg his commanders to take action, or relieve and replace a general when he failed to prosecute the war in an aggressive manner.|||None of his Generals were of quality....or at least of the same quality that the Confederates had. The Union lost many of it's battles that were led by small time Generals. One General even asked Lincoln not to promote him to General because he knew he would fail.....he failed. When Sherman and Grant became the lead Generals, the war starts to turn. Sherman and Grant were the most aggressive of his Generals as well. Grant was known as the "Butcher" because so many men died under his command. However, he made a promise to Lincoln that he would not falter in his victory of the South.....no matter what the cost. It's for that reason that Lincoln kept him.|||There really isn't a bad answer in the bunch. I don't understand why there are so many thumbs down. Of course the answer is A. Lee was a genius. Possibly the best general that has ever commanded American troops. Grant wasn't a genius, just stubborn with (virtually) unlimited resources at his command.|||A. They were very timid against the rebel army. Lincoln forgave U.S. Grant almost everything including his alcoholism, when Grant rose to prominence, "because he fights", as Lincoln put it.|||E) "Nothing succeeds like success." Successful generals win battle after battle.

6 0

3 years ago