Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Supple Cow
I don't disagree. As I have expressed since this post you quoted me on, I was more pointing out that even modifying the government in the specific ways mentioned would not result in what I'd call a paradigm shift.
Of course we don't have a true democracy. I don't have any major objections to this as a positive assertion (outside what roachboy has just said).
Here's where we get into trouble. This, to me, is a good argument for veering toward a far more authoritarian government than a republic is. I don't think our government should get any more authoritarian and so this is not an idea I like to encourage or propagate.
|
Personally, I'm for a more authoritarian rule, but that's not the point. My original point was that because it's not realistic to think people will pay attention to issues in a way that allows for a truly informed populace, you end up with the current system where it's all sizzle and no steak, and where you can have talking (or, screaming) heads actually help influence people's opinions on issues. You also have lobbyists dictating a large majority of policy, simply because they provide the money that allows the candidates to get votes. A candidate could have views that mesh with 80% of the population, but he would have zero chance of winning if he couldn't get the financial support to make himself known to the people who are voting and to show voters that he's in line with their views.
And as for solutions, I don't think eliminating lobbyists will change anything. That won't instantly make people involved in politics. It will still come down to not the best candidate, but the candidate who can sell himself best to the people. And that isn't done by being knowledgable, but by looking nice fore the camera and being likeable. As was said earlier, people will still get elected because they look nice, or seem like they'd be fun to hang out with, not because they will do their job well.