You really think that the U.S.A. has the optimal government?

I don't think that there's much hope for avoiding corruption and personal agendas in politics. The only way that could happen is if the people in charge didn't want to be in charge, at which point they probably wouldn't be a very effective government. Imagine if decision-makers were drawn from a hat, like jury duty...

I do think that proportional representation would help a bit, in Canada at least. As it is with the first past the post system, we can end up with overwhelming majorities in power despite many votes for other parties. This would make it closer to a real democracy and help prevent one party from being able to legislate pretty much whatever they want.

I'll point you to the results of the 2000 Election. Had it been majority rule, Al Gore would have won. Instead, according to our laws and system of government, Bush won.

Law is not defined by the majority, law is defined by Congress. For the most part, citizens of the U.S. have no direct say in policies - there isn't a national election where everyone gets to vote on whether to declare war, raise federal taxes, add an amendment to the constitution, etc.

Yes.

It would be chaos.

The U.S. does have proportional representation. Each state has a number of representatives in the House proportional to its population, and to balance that, each state has two senators regardless of its population.

That's not proportional representation. Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case....

These things came from grassroots movements, not the republic.

Exactly. Under majority rule, grassroots movements, special interest groups, minorities, etc are given no consideration.

I do not think that the U.S. government is optimal. But it isn't a bad system either.

I don't like the electoral college. It's outdated. Our system is set up so that we have proportional representation geographically rather than ideologically. That made some sense 250 years ago, but I think it makes none now. Our state governments are all but meaningless, and I see absolutely no reason why we should have a president elected by anything other than popular vote. As I said, it made sense when the constitution was written, but the world has changed in that time.

No, the public should not be voting on every policy decision. That's logistically impossible even if I thought it was a good idea (which I don't). But the power is still with the people. That power is mediated by the law, which effectively puts some constraints on it.

Who has the power if not the majority of the people?

Any changes to our constitution requires a referendum though. Since the constitution is supposed to be the mandate of the people then changes to it should be voted on by the people.

Our elected representatives.

A few following their own interest?

Why would they listen to anyone after being elected?

Modern republics are aristocracies, I would prefer "mob rule" in every occasion.

I think there are two ideas of 'majority' floating around here.

Ultimately, in a representative republic, a majority of people are making the decisions. They elect people to make more specialized decisions, like creating policies. But like a boss hiring someone to take care of the details, this doesn't mean the minority is in charge. I don't see the politicians as being above the people in authority, but just hired servants. Look at the direction of the money flow.

When I hear the term "the government" ironically I always think of a man in a cardboard box, guarding a soup can, muttering "The Government!" as a general explanation of his condition.

So they can get re-elected.

I'm not sure what its like elsewhere but civil servants like City Managers etc. have a lot of power here and survive regardless of the successive governments. Politicians are more likely to follow their advice on policy.

I think that that is how it SHOULD work: the people elect representatives who then get together and vote on things, representing the viewpoints of the people and basically allowing the majority to rule. That way, instead of having 30 million voting, there's 308, and it becomes logistically feasible.

In theory, if 10% of the 30 million agree with the values of, say, the Bloc Quebecois, then there should be 30 representatives in the house of commons. Instead, there are 51. That is why I think we need PR in order to actually have democracy. With the FPTP system, people are more inclined to vote strategically rather than for the party they actually agree with, because if their party doesn't stand a chance in their riding, there is no point in casting a vote for them. However, a party like the Green party, with 4% of the popular vote yet no seats, COULD elect representatives if PR were used.


EDIT: Sorry for going off topic... basically what I'm trying to say is that I believe the majority have the right to rule, but the way that the current system is set up the majority of the power doesn't actually represent the majority of the people.

So for every issue they'd vote on, a poll would be conducted of the citizenry to guage public opinion, then they'd swap legislators in and out based on their view on that issue?

No. If I understand correctly, everyone would vote for a party. Then each party would get representatives based on the percentage of the popular vote that they won. It makes no sense at all in a two-party system, but then if we did that we wouldn't have a two-party system. Enough would vote for green, libertarian, etc. to have at least a few congressmen from those parties. Presidential elections couldn't be proportional, of course, since there's just one.

Here it works differently than in the US.

In Germany there are 5 Parties in the parliament and in Italy there are even 17.

How about Hugo chavez?

So what would happen with a state like Iowa? They have two senators and probably 3 or 4 representatives. If 40% voted repub, 40% voted dem, 10% libertarian, and 5% each constitution and green party, how many green party senators will there be? How many republican representatives?

Or would states just no longer send legislators? They'd come from anywhere? Then, who on capitol hill is going to give a shit about interests of people in flyover country?