Are There Alternatives to Direct Democracy?
Yes there are alternatives.
What we have now with representative democracy,
is an alternative.
If fact, one of the biggest issues we need to investigate here,
is can we change our existing system.
Then there is globalism, anarchy, libertarianism, nationalism,
and other alternatives to put into perspective.
The intent here is to seek more democracy,
and more control by the people.
If you want to move in the other direction,
that is, you feel like a smaller group of people
should have more control and make our decisions,
then Direct Democracy is not for you.
Here we want to solve problems such as,
conflicting motives (ex: politician’s re-election),
lack of transparency (ex: secrecy),
polarization of ideas, lack of true debate, personality worship,
and too much influence by any entity (ex: the media).
There are a lot of ideas about government out there.
Some are even variations of Direct Democracy
like deliberative and liquid democracy.
Let’s first get to the place where we are getting solid information,
where every perspective is heard,
and we are in control of the decisions.
Then, we can evaluate and vote on all of these variations.
The pivotal point is that we have to get ourselves in control.
See also: Is this communism?
Here’s the flow below…
---- Globalism ----
We have to mention globalism early on,
because it may be the natural way we are headed now.
Globalism is tricky to talk about,
since very few of us know anything about it,
it is riddled with conspiracy theory,
and it is more of an understated or hidden direction.
Globalism is that idea that given the interconnectedness of the world,
there should be governing bodies for the entire globe.
The United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund (IMF),
and World Bank are examples of globalism.
The European Union (EU) and international trade agreements
are further examples of globalism.
These ideas are not bad in themselves.
The problem is how it tilts the scale away from democracy.
Globalism is another layer above our national government,
that essentially puts us citizens further from real decision-making.
Part of the underlying idea of globalism,
is that a more qualified group of people,
experts and scientists and technocrats,
should make decisions for our world.
There is some merit there,
but the risk is too great when we lose democratic control.
Isn’t it a better solution to use Direct Democracy
to let our entire spectrum of people submit opinions,
and have those opinions challenged and debated?
Involving ourselves with organizations like the UN,
should only happen if we are in control of our government.
We might be surprised how many of our centrist politicians,
Republican and Democrat, support the globalism concept.
Theories of conspiracy often see a sinister elite
involved in the Globalism movement,
which is why no politician uses the term.
The conspiracy could be true, but it doesn’t matter.
Not if we simply recognize that globalism,
is a move away from true democracy,
and so is not acceptable.
If you are a closet Globalist without a nefarious agenda,
and believe that decisions are best made by qualified people,
why wouldn’t you be willing to support Direct Democracy
and a successful Decision Website that produces good results?
The experts can still speak in the Decision Website,
and the common person can understand sound logic.
---- Nationalism ----
Nationalists are those people,
that see a problem with globalism.
They tend to believe in the conspiracy aspect,
and believe that the globalists have created a secret power base,
deep in our government agencies.
Nationalists want to doggedly resist globalism,
and look out for our national interests first.
The problem with nationalism is that it doesn’t fix anything,
in regards to the flaws in our national government,
and giving back control to citizens.
Nationalists, with their love of democracy and freedom,
should support Direct Democracy.
See also: More on Nationalism
---- Anarchism ----
Anarchism is not what you think.
The term means no hierarchy, no bosses, and no rulers.
Anarchists point out the problems we have historically encountered,
by giving power to individuals and to governments.
Anarchists have long supported the idea of citizen cooperation.
Anarchists have a strong aversion to any government
that has to use enforcement.
Anarchists should be on-board with Direct Democracy,
at least as a stepping stone or a mechanism for cooperation.
See also: More on Anarchism
---- Libertarians ----
American style libertarianism
(historically and in Europe it is associated more with Anarchy),
pushes for a much smaller and weaker government,
in order to have a more robust business world.
Libertarians should be on-board with Direct Democracy.
They love individual freedom.
And we need their perspective to help guarantee
that Direct Democracy does not trample
on our personal freedoms.
See also: More on Libertarians
---- Hybrid - Direct and Representative ----
We could build a Decision Website,
that would let representatives know what the people wanted.
We could also make constitutional amendments,
that force representatives to follow the people’s opinions.
Of course, we should also make amendments like those listed below,
to that take away the problem of money and career politicians,
as well as guarantying transparency in government.
The question here is whether retaining representative democracy,
continues to leave a weak spot in our system.
We would have the extra burden of monitoring the representatives,
given the continued problem of bias and corruption.
And are representatives even necessary
given the valid option of full, pure Direct Democracy.
See also: What’s wrong with Representative Democracy?
---- Changing our current system ----
The American people have been concerned about
the integrity of our democracy for some time.
We routinely made changes to help…
1870 black males can vote; 1920 women can vote;
1949 media Fairness Doctrine; 1964 poll tax removal;
1965 registration restrictions; 1971 voting age from 21 to 18.
But is the trend to improve our democracy,
really fixing the problem?
The process moves extremely slowly.
Sometimes we run into dilemmas,
where the constitution itself makes it difficult
for us to make changes.
Redistricting (gerrymandering) has never been fixed.
Freedom of speech has forced us to allow corporations
to donate unlimited amounts of campaign money
through PACs. (Citizens United)
Campaign Finance rules in general are difficult to create,
because of the court’s interpretation of Freedom of Speech.
Below is a list of ideas that could help improve our democracy.
It is quite possible that the changes would be ineffective
unless they are implemented in large groupings
to close the loopholes.
We might do this with a constitutional convention,
a meeting to hammer out all of the changes we need.
The citizens would have to wrestle this constitutional convention
away from the politicians and their parties,
as well as from industry and wealth.
We would be at war with them and their media,
trying to get our viewpoint to be heard.
It wouldn’t be easy and some would say impossible.
But let’s say it could happen.
We owe it to ourselves to realistically consider this option.
Would the outcome be as wonderful as we hope?
What about the inherent flaws we have with representative democracy?
Wouldn’t it be better to jump further to Direct Democracy,
which naturally solves most of these problems?
Would we be keeping representative democracy
primarily because we are “used” to it?
Looking at the risk of making big changes,
it might seem safer to tweak our system,
rather than seeking new horizons.
But isn’t it surprisingly fortunate,
that we have just reached a stage in history,
where Direct Democracy is possible?
And possibly, we are brave enough to make a far-reaching change.
Consider that the country’s founders,
were bold enough to break away from England,
and not muddle with tweaking the relationship.
What can we change within our US Constitution to make it more successful democratically?
See also: Why Direct Democracy Now?
