05-26-2003, 05:25 PM
IMHO, your reason #4 is closer to the mark on why direct democracy doesn't work than reason #5. The entire citizen populace does not have the time or desire to wade through all of it's own ideas and figure out what is best. The process has to take place on a smaller scale, and the people involved need to have the necessary resources at their disposal in order to make informed decisions. The physical process of voting is trivial by comparison.
For a good example, consider the United States budget. Here is something that absolutely has to be done each year (or at least often enough to keep pace with evolving legislation). All of the programs that are in place must be funded, decisions must be made about where that money comes from, projections must be made about how the incoming funds compare to the outgoing. Now imagine the chaos if 100-200 million citizens were allowed to directly provide their input, proposing amendments to the budget, squabbling over the details, and voting yes or no. How many people would be willing to devote the time necessary? How informed would they be? Would anything ever be accomplished? Having been to some school board meetings and township trustee meetings, I must say that even in the most direct possible form of democracy it would be absolutely essential to have someone who runs the agenda (and this person would necessarily have far more influence than the average person). Otherwise literally nothing gets done.
Representative government is a practical compromise. It allows every citizen real political influence without having to devote their lives to politics. We pay the representatives to set aside their real jobs (at least in theory they have real jobs!) and devote a portion of their lives to running the government. The timing of elections also exists for a good reason. If a group of legislators is not in office for several years, for example, they won't be around long enough to see that the legislation they passed is actually funded and implemented.
For a good example, consider the United States budget. Here is something that absolutely has to be done each year (or at least often enough to keep pace with evolving legislation). All of the programs that are in place must be funded, decisions must be made about where that money comes from, projections must be made about how the incoming funds compare to the outgoing. Now imagine the chaos if 100-200 million citizens were allowed to directly provide their input, proposing amendments to the budget, squabbling over the details, and voting yes or no. How many people would be willing to devote the time necessary? How informed would they be? Would anything ever be accomplished? Having been to some school board meetings and township trustee meetings, I must say that even in the most direct possible form of democracy it would be absolutely essential to have someone who runs the agenda (and this person would necessarily have far more influence than the average person). Otherwise literally nothing gets done.
Representative government is a practical compromise. It allows every citizen real political influence without having to devote their lives to politics. We pay the representatives to set aside their real jobs (at least in theory they have real jobs!) and devote a portion of their lives to running the government. The timing of elections also exists for a good reason. If a group of legislators is not in office for several years, for example, they won't be around long enough to see that the legislation they passed is actually funded and implemented.