Well, it's difficult to place myself on a "scale" since they're all different and pretty much all inaccurate. I consider myself classically liberal, since "conservative" doesn't cut it and "libertarian" doesn't work for every aspect of my political opinions. I think we need to stick to the original intent of the Constitution, with an extremely limited federal government.
Really? And just how have authoritarian systems worked out for the past 100 years? Look at all the incidents involving police beating peaceful protesters, the Patriot Act, and the NDAA, then tell me how democratic this country is now.
I'm using the Obama-phone as an example. There's a video of people saying they voted for Obama because they got a free phone from his campaign. Many others voted for him because he promises more programs, more spending, and more taxes on the wealthy to pay for all of this. Free stuff for them with someone else shouldering the burden.
The 50% plus one can enforce their rules without limit on the minority. In a democracy, the majority could do whatever they wanted to the wealthy, who so unfairly "hoard" their wealth "without helping" the rest of us. The wealthy class would be torn down and our economy would collapse. Democracy is mobocracy.
Wouldn't the constitution still apply(albeit slightly modified by whatever amendment allowed this hypothetical scenario) if the United States were to convert to a pure democracy rather then the representative democracy we have now?
Most likely not, because under a pure democracy, the majority could have the power to change whatever they wanted to. I'm pretty sure the majority that voted for our current president would be perfectly fine with giving him unlimited power. He is, after all "our lord and savior," in the words of one liberal.
"I'm pretty sure the majority that voted for our current president would be perfectly fine with giving him unlimited power. He is, after all "our lord and savior," in the words of one liberal."
This comment is beyond stupid. I do not need to prove why something this stupid is that stupid. You however do need to back up something this profoundly stupid with some sort of evidence. I'll save you the trouble, there is none.
Every faction has those who are prone to hyperbole. Believe me, while most liberals believe the current president to be better then his predecessor or the opposition he's faced during elections, many of us don't have enough faith in him to give him unlimited power. Not to mention that goes against the liberal ideal of freedom.
But back to the OT under a constitutional democracy should be restrained by the constitution the same as the current government. For example, if another 9/11 like situation arose and a strong anti-islam sentiment grew again among the majority, the constitution would still prevent them from banning it because the 1st amendment guarantees religious freedom in the US.
There is a difference between calling a country democratic and calling a country democratic to an absolute degree. Just like how you can't call America capitalist to an absolute degree or the USSR communist to an absolute degree, yet they still are.
Representative democracy gives power to a specific group chosen democratically, with them being in power for x amount of time. Ultimately, as with any specific singular group having disproportionate amounts of power, they'll want to keep that. From there, it's a slow gradual state of corruption. They still do what the majority wants them to, but keep whatever they can for themselves.
Direct democracy does not have this problem. There is no one specific handful of people with such a great amount of power over everyone else. The closest to that is the majority within the people. That is however a problem in itself, seeing as they are the majority, they're big and for the most part control the votes. That however, unlike in the representative form, is only a problem if the system is implemented badly. It doesn't need to be completely direct democracy and just be as close to it as possible before running into severe problems.
So basically, both have their problems. Both are almost solely what the majority wants, though representative democracy has the added problem of corrupt parties.