12 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 36.7 ms ] thread
I seem to remember that in the Federalist Papers, Madison argues against direct democracy because it would become too partisan as the country grew. Looks like as we slowly transformed the US republic into a democracy, he was right. I can't say that's why we ended up with oligarchy, but I think building power structures around parties has contributed greatly.
I think you need to check the definition of direct democracy. The U.S. has never had that form of government, so U.S. history cannot possibly demonstrate the accuracy of Madison's arguments.
I'd be curious if notions of "direct democracy" as we understand it today even existed in Madison's time.
No longer? When ever was it? It's always unambiguously been an oligarchic republic.
A constitutional republic, not merely a republic.
This is old (2014), but if current indications are anything from someone overseas it's lost a lot of its glory.
"Government is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex." - Frank Zappa

Never truer than in 2016.

(comment deleted)
Everything about this article is rubbish.

1) As has been mentioned by many before the US is not and never was intended to be a Democracy. A Constitutional Republic is the form of government in the US, those who choose to call it an actual Democracy are either placating the plebs with a buzzword which makes them feel enabled, or are ignorant of the reality of the representative nature of our our government.

2) The paper goes all the way back to the 1980s to draw upon its conclusion, ignoring the way political appointments, selection of senators and voting in general were conducted during the first two centuries of the US.

3) The source is talkingpointsmemo.com which is literally a site of talking points for the left, who are constantly abusing the word "Democracy"