Representative Democracy IS NOT Democracy

[rycka1983]

I would like to point out, that if ordinary peole would not vote for politicians who spent most money, system would not work. So we are to blame too.

[d3ltadrive]

(cont) to have a voice in politics, but so that it is not anarchy. We need people to actually petition and be active in government, but we need representation so that anarchy does not unfold, because that always results in tyranny. We need people a nonpartisan election so people actually vote for who they think would represent them best, and we need to make the federal government only protect the constitution. We need to respect the states and towns rights to create laws.

[d3ltadrive]

We need direct representation (we vote for people to represent us in a non partisan elections, instead of if 60% vote for one guy, 30% for another, and 10% for another the first guy gets the seat, the first guy's vote counts for 6/10ths, the second guy 3/10ths, and the third guy 1/10ths), and we need to get government back to a local level where people can petition. Our government has representative because direct always creates anarchy and later tyranny. Petitioning was made so we can continue

[MyThoughtsonGov]

Just wrote an article about money winning campaigns in my "My Thoughts on the Government" Blog. The article is entitled "Is Our Country Ran on Democracry or Moneyocracy" Check it out if you would like:

mythoughtsonthegovernment.blog­spot.com

[chris7777777777777]

The illusion that a direct democracy allows the voices of all people to be heard is utter bullshit! How the fuck is any form of government suppose to bend at the will of all our views and opinions, it barely has time to conduct everyday business, let alone listen to 300 million opinions about how something should be done?

[d3ltadrive]

@chris7777777777777 A libertarian government does. A government that is truly for the people will allow people to do whatever the hell they want as long as they aren't infringing upon the liberty or safety of others. Government is only for creating order through law, and we need libertarian law. The federal government is only for protecting the constitution and the running of the militia, the states and towns are the ones to create law.

[JRBeaman]

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

watch?v=Z184mJN8CUI

Democracy is mob rule. (Like gang-rape)

Our founding fathers loathed it.

Do your homework on this and then tell me why "they" call us a democracy.

The word "democracy" is not contained in any of our founding documents.

We are NOT a democracy, nor a "true democracy".

Sorry.

[Melotha]

Typical ignorant response of someone who doesn't quite understand the principles our government was founded upon.

[death9719]

2 alternatives to a revolutionary move i am an arnarcho syndicalist because it is the most way for freedom but if there was a realistic second option i would take it

i have 2 suggestion

first limit or ban campaign contributions and pass laws demystify laws and make them easily accessible

second all unions should buy huge stock in corporations and make huge funds for politician using stocks they control business using democracy they elect board members

[tricky12321]

LOVE this!! i dont care if its true or not im just using it for my argument againt representative democracy in my exam :)

[Deb0raR]

So, in the name of "fairness" why did the Supreme Court allow corporations to donate to political candidates? Should not campaign contributions be limited to those Americans who are eligible to vote - and then only from funds that they themselves have earned? What we have now is a system of bribery as a direct result of these decisions..... And why do we not require that candidates declare their spending budgets up front and limit spending to the lowest common denominator?

[justjosh81]

i hate to say this but its not the politicians fault, or giant corporations. its ours. government is only a reflection of society. we still have the power, we just dont know it. walmart only succeeds because people shop there. obama is only president because we voted for him. we choose to be ignorant and let others handle the responsibility for us. if we didnt vote, or didnt shop, what would happen? the system would fail.

[KingofKlubs]

The problem of course is that it is officially impossible to implement a Direct Democracy now as humanity has grown far too numerous. Direct democracy works in relatively small city-states not nations because too many people congregate at one time. So the only alternative are Representatives. In Britain, our representatives represent our INTERESTS, not our OPINIONS because we are not a real democracy. We are a Constitutional Monarchy which believes the people are too ignorant to rule the nation.

[neoptolemus]

@KingofKlubs I'm in Britain and i know for a fact that our politicians do not represent our interests, they represent their own class interests, they represent the interests of the rich and the powerful. Also, it's not impossible to impliment direct democracy, it can easily function. One group of 50 sending one delegate (who's obligated to express the decisions already been decided upon by their group) to a council of 50 delegates would only require 6 councils to include 15 billion people.

[KingofKlubs]

@neoptolemus what do have to really substantiate the claim that politicians ONLY serve their own interests?

So you have representatives representing other representatives. The problem comes with how can you reach a consensus without succumbing to the tyranny of the majority.

[Curas1]

thumbs up for a good video, but it's hard not to see the conservative as establishment mentality in this when I think there is a small division in government but a country with vast division between rich n poor.

In other words the teaparty vs Kerry aspect is as important as the berkley crowd vs Bushbots aspect of it.

[earthwizz]

Thank you. Useful and perceptive insights, but it goes further. All RepDecs, no matter how many parties, break down into a left/right division. An adversarial system where qualities we would like to see in our decision-making, creative discussion, co-operation, are for too easy to attack and are, therefore, non-existant. While everyone fights 'The Money' are free to do whatever they like. The right/left dichotomy is a diversion to removing the voice of the people. LeftLibertarian is an oxymoron.

[activistone]

I like your style. I contacted the Venus project to work on ballot access in Florida and they denied any interest. There was an initiative to save the everglades, and one to end land taxes, replacing them with other revenue. I see you support direct democracy and the Venus project ideals, and you acknowledge socialism is another elitist plot for consolidated control. I think you have a clear picture. Keep it up!

[catbuffalo]

It's nice to see videos about democracy on youtube. Especially with the rise of anti-democratic rhetoric even amongst mainstream right-wing thought.

[azerty1537]

The title is wrong it should be:

"AMERICAN Representative Democracy IS NOT Democracy"

The european system is not perfect, but its way beater then the american plutocracy.

[infocus]

@azerty1537 I'm not familiar enough with any European system. How are they different from America's? In other words, how do we improve?

[AmericanNohbuddy]

And the minority still gets screwed over.

If we put giving blacks rights after the civil war was up to a vote for everyone, would they have done it?

There is a reason why the founders didn't like the idea. We are a REPUBLIC

We also have checks and balances which have worked.

[juliaisafilmbuff123]

@AmericanNohbuddy Democracy isn't a pervasive majority rule of 51% over 49% but rather people being able to have control over issues that affect them to the proportion in which they are affected. So yes, in a truly democratic society, racial minorities would have a voice over matters of their discrimination by the system.

[AmericanNohbuddy]

@juliaisafilmbuff123

People aren't that nice. In a legit direct democracy they could vote to take away anything.

If a direct democracy with the majority of super religious christians voted to ban any other religious symbol, practice, or building, who would stop them? Or if a group of people banned books?

[xknowledgeisfreex]

@AmericanNohbuddy

There would have to be a constitution, which ensures that the human rights of people can't just be voted away.

Freedom of religion is a human right, so it would be impossible to make a law that bans all other religions.

[AmericanNohbuddy]

@xknowledgeisfreex

Who the hell is going to enforce things if it's an anarchic system? People can vote rights away all the time. CA did it with gay marriage and then a judge overruled it and people complained.

All of this is wishful thinking. Just saying "if" they do this, doesn't prove anything.

[multiverse3]

Another issue it should be touched : there is no such thing as altruism. The Theory of Evolution could not explain altruism, as we live in a continuous struggle of getting more with less energy. We see this in plants and animals, it is NATURAL! This makes the concept of representative democracy,obsolete!

Assuming there is no altruism , the only logical system is the direct democracy government, where people from a large spectrum of life will be able to contribute in order to output the balance.

[juliaisafilmbuff123]

@multiverse3 Ever read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid?

[Engineer245]

You are absolutely correct. America is not a democracy in most election areas. Also the media access thorugh dollars spent is makes our election system evil. Some American think it is the best on the planet. This is not trure because a true one person one vote onehundred percent across the board would be a true democracy. America has the best government MONEY can buy!!!!!!!

[Nawledge1]

LOL. I work for an AT&T call center. This sucks.

[RyanShortFilms]

AMEN! Everything in this video is utterly accurate and the outcome is completely true. I'm only 14 years old but I wish to be president of the USA and I will work with congress to repeal the amendments in the constitution that supports representative democracy.

Among the only honest politicians in American history have been Lincoln and Kennedy. I pray to God I can be like these magnificent individuals.

[cdgtheory]

What are some of the movies you post clips of in your videos?

[vrazwer]

Representative democracy ought to be regarded as a crackpot theory, along the lines of squaring the circle, perpetual motion, and magic compression algorithms.

[chorademokracia]

Youre totally right!!! Representative democracy is only a sly totalistic system and the most monstreus and criminally oligarchy in the human history!

[nosleepnation]

Democracy is dangerous, and you wonder why the elite fear it. I fear it as well

[barccy]

Elective Oligarchy is not democracy.

[PerfektBlue]

@barccy Electing dictators is not democracy its named a republic and its wrong !

[barccy]

@PerfektBlue While not necessarily the same thing, democracy and republicanism aren't mutually exclusive, unless using definitions favored by Madison and Adams.

[Slobbert]

Thanks man. So many more people need to understand that the left vs. right paradigm is a move right out of makaveli's the prince, "Divide & Conquer".

[aSheeple]

Well done.... Well done indeed!

[nightcrowred]

I agree with this about on a scale 5/10.. I Think that a represenitive democracy is required however, I believe it should be done ALOT differently then the current system we have now. Not in favor of any corprate favor. Good video though, I gave it 5 stars.

[TheLeftLibertarian]

My video Direct Democracy is what I would replace Representative Democracy with. Thanks for the comment.

[Renegen1]

Interesting idea... what do you have to say about the fact that not all representative democracies are the same? You hit the nail on the head with the one person one vote, that is the key issue, but we DONT have it because of the influence of money. One Corporation can buy thousands of votes.

But look at Canada. Our politicians are typically more from within our population and we seem to have a stronger political system. Overall you can't generalize like that, it shows a lack of knowledge.

[TheLeftLibertarian]

@Renegen1: I agree that not all representative democracies are the same and I was using the US just as an example. However, I think R. Democracy uses a middleman where one is not needed. I think many of my points can be universalized into all systems of R Democracy. I think if you follow the idea of what democracy is and what it is suppose to do, then you would prefer something like Participatory Democracy. I think that the Canadian system is better because it get closer to the democratic ideal.

[yaann]

@TheLeftLibertarian Yes I believe you are correct about many of your points being valid for other representative-democracy countries. In France our choice is really limited to two parties as well (the media always ridicule/ignore the other parties). The candidates are power-hungry and money-thursty (ie corruptible) and most questions regarded as essential by my fellow countrymen are never disscussed by the politicians. Representative democracy seems to select the worst possible leaders.

[MilanTbay]

@Renegen1

In Canada we have much better laws against campaign contribution and control over our politicians but the big 3 parties are still corporate shills.

Harpers "think-tanks" The Fraser Inst. CCCE and the one I always forget are paid for by US corporations.

It was the Liberals that started borrowing from private business instead of OUR central bank.

[Renegen1]

The Howe Institute?

[MilanTbay]

@ Renegen1

Thanks.

See if I remember it in a week, lol.

A right wing 'think-tank' is an oxymoron anyhow.

Den of thieves is a better name for them.

[chorademokracia]

@Renegen1 I want only have a comment, that this problem of corruptive politicians has the whole world and in all representative democracies in the world. I am from slovakia and in this littlelittle country we have 18 partys, who will be in the election on 12th June and still is this system corrupt and only a sly totalistic system, a criminal oligarchy. So, it doesnt matters how many parties we have, even when i dont envy you people in us that you have only 2 parties. I will be maybe conservative

[Eopyk]

Remember that how corrupt politicians are variy in the USA it is high tough.

And also representive systems that vary is something we have because direct democracy is more ideal the realistic in the larger sense some nations like Switzerland have both direct and representive elements

[IlCuocoMalvagio]

I quite agree with you. BTW, your videos are always clear and direct. 5/5.

[wolverine10mm]

Great video, everything you said is so very true.

[RyanShortFilms]

AMEN!!!!

Every piece is TRUE! :)

[gov360dotorg]

Representative Government does not work in the USA, because 90% of the people cannot even name their representative from their own local district.

for a Constitutional Representative Republic to function for the benefit of the people - the people must participate.

It is a concept called self-governing - but it is obviously NOT working because the engine is dead - the engine is the people

the people are not participating -

JOIN GOV360 and help us spread the word!! THANKS

[electricneedleroom]

Well done indeed. You have taken my thoughts and presented them so much more clearly than I did the other night when I was trying to explain this to my friend.

[landfillpoet]

Excellent, well done.

[d1deej]

again 5 stars. this is fantastic

[Carnage251]

Don Siegelman wasn't corrupt

[Serethen]

So I guess my point is that there is a level between direct democracy and the American and British form of representative democracy that is far more democratic, which you should look into. Read from the first comment below. :)

"Proportional representation"

[Serethen]

It is also easier to identify yourself ideologically with a party when there are plenty of them to choose from.

It is also easier to create a party that can make influence, you only need one seat in parliament to have influence, because your one seat support can decide if a government can stay in power, or the one seat can even be a part of the government.

[Serethen]

For instance in Sweden, a party by the name "The Pirate Party" was established recently,

derived from the torrent site thepiratebay

Their soul purpose is to reform laws regarding copyright and patents.

The stunning part is that they will probably get a seat in parliament in the upcoming

general election. They already have a seat in the European Parliament, they got 7,1% of the vote.

One can actually take matters in ones own hands, without using tons of money on lobbyists.

[GuiMarquito]

@Serethen Cool, i've read that in some magazines. But still, its only one seat and the two major parties will always prevail. The system is built for that.

[Serethen]

The government will be less effective when handeling radical change, some will say this is good. Because a majority in parliament is hard to obtain without cooperating with other parties, and radical solo campaigns like the Bush area is less likely to happen.

In my country the current government at the moment has majority in the parliament, but it consists of three parties, one big one that had to cooparate with two small parties to obtain 50%.

[Serethen]

Well, the issue in the USA is that you have "first past the post/Winner takes it all"

and not

"Proportional representation"

Nick has 20 votes

Thomas has 20 votes

Jane has 21 votes.

The first two, Nick and Thomas are excluded in USA (and UK).

This is less democratic, while in an Proportional representation, the number of seats in the parliament represents the number of votes, so all the three candidates would be almost equally strong. = More power to the people.

[exilefromthefireland]

daah...!!!aristotle wrote about that stuff in "nicomacheian ethics" some 2500 years ago...

[VBranberg]

Hmm... for some reason the video freezes at 7:58.

Before that the video was great. 5/5

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

Why bother mincing words?

A murderer is a murderer, a thief is a thief, and a politico is both - no matter what we decide to call his state.

[canaan1967]

There is a perception that the candidate that amasses the most money contributions wins because he/'she has access to more media outlets and gets more airtime for their campaign adverts. What is never discussed is that the corporate contributors are deciding the winners before we even go to the polls.

[canaan1967]

"Our system of voting takes ordinary people and turns them into immoral politicians"

I disagree with this statement. These people are not ordinary. They come from privileged, elitist backgrounds. I believe they know how corrupt the system is from the get go.  It's not that they don't like lying and pretending but that they have no aversion to it.

[d3ltadrive]

@canaan1967 The only normal people to go into politics (Ron and Rand Paul) are the 2 least corrupt people on this planet today. Someone who actually has values won't be corrupted, but if they are raised by elites they will be corrupt. We don't even have democracy at all. We have fake elections and a tyranny by the fed, IRS (part of the IMF, gives tax money directly to the fed who loans it to the gov which creates debt) and we are led by a very small number of people who own the media as well.

[mikesbodypolitic]

while governmental structures create some barriers to the will of the people finding expression, in representative democracy we have the tools we need in that sector of democracy. The barrier is the media, education system, the slave wage economy, and campaign contributions. Take those away in any democracy and watch the revolution unfold.

[mikesbodypolitic]

Every system needs either representatives or officers of the government to institute policy. At some point someone is getting management power, which isn't in itself bad. What's bad is the adversarial relationship between the wealthy and everyone else being so slanted in favor of the wealthy to control voting outcomes.

[mikesbodypolitic]

Regardless of the form of democracy it's the influence of elites you want to curtail. This means taking away the right to use money as speech, private campaign contributions, governmental transparency, medias that are supported through private advertising and news media mostly being privately owned.

Even in direct democracy if you didn't have these you might wind up with the same result.

[canaan1967]

This is what Michael Parenti talks about in one of his articles when referring to the the reforms that Nicaragua has undergone concerning points you raised about grass roots elections and free access to media by candidates.

[mikesbodypolitic]

I don't know who michael parenti is but I'm happy enough to find that you seem to agree with what i'm saying. People need to understand the structure of democracy, and that it depends on more than the right to vote.

[PolemicalCommentary]

Direct Democracy ftw.

[tomheppy]

I love your voice.

[gravel2008]

You covered a lot of good points in 9:36! Nice video.

[uterfan]

Great video!!! Hope you'll mention the National Initiave for Democracy in your next video as the counter solution to representative government.

Here is how you empower yourselves:

go to

Ni4D(dot)us

and vote for the National Initiatve

[greenhell666]

I don't know if I should call it plutocracy or neo-feudalism 0_0

[Irtidad]

Hey I like this, really direct and straightforward, no bullshit.

[wubbadubdub]

nice!

[alien8ted]

Brilliant video, 5 stars! This isn't a democracy but a plutocracy, rule by the rich, no different to when monarchs screwed us for their own gain. Representative democracy has failed the people. Politicians should be made extinct by us all implementing participatory democracy. In Britain alone we waste 500 million pounds a year on these war-mongering, mealy-mouthed, hypocritical parasites.

Q: How can you tell when a politician's lying? A: Their lips move.

[HailRasec]

Beautiful.

[organdva]

Clear, accurate, right on the spot. Congratulations :)

[NatureLegalized]

Go Direct Vote/Full Participation All Levels ASAP!

[truvelocity]

Five stars, thank you.

[Elizruth]

You are awesome. Could you put out a weekly video please which analyzes some of the myriad of intense issues going on? It would be AWESOME to hear from you more often? :-)

[Xsublime28xX]

To echo what atypicalguy said, I almost forgot I was subscribed to you. I really wish you made more videos. We need people like you making this sort of thing so keep up the good work. Thanks for posting

[markiz2001]

participatory/direct democracy is okay.

lottery democracy is best.

instead of electing 500 representatives, you select them through a lottery process. it's simple and it works.

[Gripen1974]

I am from a country with a parlamentary system where we dont elect politicians, we elect parties whos idees are closest to our own, the politicians are picked out of the parties and the parties elect a primeminister who forms the goverment. With that metod not a much money is needed to win and the politicians seem closer to us then what i have seen in USA.

Also alot of power is delegated down in the line down to county/town lvl. Decentralized power is importent together with an informed public.

[TiradeFaction]

European parliamentary systems like Sweden's, while far from perfect, I think are still steps above what we have in the US. We're not even at the point of an open partisan system, we've got a LOT of work until we catch up to you guys haha.

[TiradeFaction]

Very interesting video.

I generally agree with what you're saying, though I think it's fair to point out most representative democracies around the west aren't bolted down to only two parties. And I do think we need to reform representative democracy before we can move towards an inclusive participatory democracy. Take it step by step..!

[atypicalguy]

I forgot I was subscribed to you.

[Arkinight]

Thanks for addressing this myth that has been peddled for too long.