For those of you not interesting in reading the following paragraphs, here's a summary of my thoughts in a click-bait style headline: Is representative democracy really worth the hype? One seventeen year-old kid shares his thoughts.
Click here to take you somewhere that has nothing to do with his ideas!Ah, how interesting a discussion! As I see it, the problem with the system of democracy involves the nature of voting, certainly, but rather than the assignment of that right to specific groups or to everyone is irrelevant; in the end, the elected official will be the one making the decisions where it truly matters. That is the issue: representation. A system cannot truly represent its people without each person contributing his or her own thoughts on any particular topic. Now, of course, given that, you'll run into a few issues: how do you account for the opinions of every person? How can you guarantee their input? How should each person be expected to vote on each topic brought to attention? Of the first of these, we run into the obvious solution: representation. Therein, however, you are no longer guaranteed your unique input (since the majority opinion becomes further diluted by the elected individual the more representatives exist in the hierarchy). Perhaps, then, virtual voting should be made an option: you can apply your individuality through input by a digital means, thereby acquiring the perspectives of all persons in the country. But what if they decide not to vote? If the conscious decision is made to abstain from voting, then it is simply a matter of them not having a right to complain if the outcome is not what he or she wanted. Wait a minute: thousands of topics are discussed throughout the year, how on Earth can everyone be expected to vote on all of them? This is the most serious concern (and perhaps the only major reason why a direct democracy would be difficult to implement in this age), but it can be addressed: (1) perhaps it should be left to individual to vote on that which they have the time and the desire to do so, (2) perhaps the nature of voting should be reduced to a simple question that can be easily answered through the aforementioned digital voting system thereby eliminating the time taken to vote, or (3) perhaps the number of matters discussed should be minimized for those voting.
Why is this important anyhow?
Zonoro wrote:It is unfair to have a government rule over people who do not have a say in that government. Democracy has been the backbone of civilization since ancient Greece. It is the only system that works well while remaining fair to its people.
Democracy was indeed the backbone of ancient Greece -- direct democracy that is. Representation means that the government indeed does rule over people who don't have a say in government; they offered their opinions for someone who has similar opinions, not on the debated topic itself, so you've only placed your trust in having that person vote somewhat like you do. But when that comes to particular issues, it may be that the majority representative for that majority does not do so. Ergo, you introduce redundancy; if there are enough representatives, we presume all primary opinions can be accounted for. But that's not necessarily true. For example: I agree with Senator Muffinman that we should refine the tax code regarding cupcakes, but I disagree that we should limit how many different types of cupcakes are sold in stores. Nevertheless, I voted for him, since he was the only available candidate with a somewhat similar opinion to my own.
It might be best to regard this in a different context: A man has six papayas to give to a fellow friend of mine who I trust to sell them at the price I want, so I give them and send him off to market. Along the way, he finds another person who he trusts with the six papayas (also believing that they will be sold fairly) and transfers them to him. Now, this man reaches the market and has to haggle with the store to get these papayas properly sold, but in the nature of compromise (and what he thinks is proper) he sells them at, say, 67 cents a papaya. He returns the money to the other person who returns it to the original. He, however, is not satisfied; he wanted at least 70 cents a papaya, and though he got something close, it wasn't quite what he desired.
This isn't a rant against representative democracy and the nature of the voting system, since, at present, it is the most viable option on a large-scale, but simply a consideration of a better alternative which may be possible with the heightening of communications technology. The nature of politics is ever-evolving -- and to the best of my ability I try to stay uninvolved since most of the popular representatives do not share my opinions -- but perhaps the best solution is the most apparent one. Or perhaps I'm wrong entirely; that's up for you to decide.