It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
Because that was the reason for having a free democratic election. We are supposed to form policy around the votes of the people. That was supposed to be the key to each of us having a voice in the government. Your vote COUNTED. Now a select few on the behalf of others(corporations) have a say over yours, and if not over, at least before yours.
Forming a large group to purse monies together is ridiculous, that was the whole point to the vote(it should be illegal, wonder why it isnt? $$$).
You didn't need to be rich to have your voice heard. You simply walked down and voted and hoped rest of country was in line with your thoughts. Now you have large families/corporations, using their money to get policy formed around their views. Not the country's views.
Let alone the trump of all trump cards, electoral votes. That is the ultra elites fail safe, last ditch effort. Even if the entire 300 million + people of the country say go right. They still have the electoral to say go left and change the outcome of an entire election.
I think Americans and most in general have good political/debate skills. The problem is that many get smoke blown up the you know what. Why is it for past 30+ years we are still talking about abortion?
Nothing has changed since R v W, so why is it even an election discussion topic?
Originally posted by NihilistSanta
Here is a question about direct democracy and representational democracy. Do we have enough office holders to correctly reflect the views of the people? Did they imagine a country of 300+ million with the form of govt established? or has that been changed somehow? seems so disproportionate and is probably the reason why 3rd parties have never been able to get a secure foothold. Also it seems to me that the more representatives you have the harder it is to buy them all off or compromise them thus preventing power being allocated to just a few.
Originally posted by AceWombat04
The solution is what we, in theory, have. Not a pure democracy, but a constitutional, democratic republic. Wherein the rights of minorities are protected by the judiciary and neither the legislature, nor the local or federal governments, can disabuse citizens of those rights, regardless of what a majority wants or feels. Neither can the minority inflict statutes or norms on others that take away their rights. (Note that I do not believe being forced to know that there are other people out there married in a way that you disprove of constitutes taking away anyone's rights.)
Unfortunately, this is not always the reality in practice.
Originally posted by mrkeen
And who exactly establishes the list of 'approved' minorities? Is there a minimum number of people in a minority? Do they have to include famous people, do they need to live compactly in one place? How much money has to be spent for media campaigns before these people's problems receive any attention? Do they even need to go through any media campaings? Just look how much attention some minorities receive in the media, they are basically popularized to the point of nausea. But other minorities are simply ignored. Can you outline how these problems are addressed in the type of social system you described?