This is a question which was undoubtedly the focus of much debate by our founding fathers. And they put together a great system. The United States has, since it's conception, been a pretty amazing Country. It was the first modern country to implement democracy and I don't have a whole bunch of complaints about that.
However, I just find myself wondering if we should still be using a like an almost 250 year old structure of government today. Would I want a 250 year old TV in my living room?-- wait, that doesn't make sense-- Would I want to live in a 250 year old house? Well, I guess if it was a good one, and restored, and had things like electricity, probably.
Also, I find myself half-sad, half-disgusted by politicians. They, in my opinion (which is in no way absolutely correct and very up-for-debate if you talk to me), are basically a pretty face to stamp over many complex issues. They dance around like monkeys to get the masses to like them, but is that really their job?-- wait--- should that be there job?
Well, when I think about it, what they do is only a reflection of the system they're a part of. That's it. Our way of organizing democracy creates people that dance like monkeys. I don't think there is a better example of this than political debates. Like I think I lost a few IQ points the last time I watched one. So much talking and so little logic. It's like everyone's on different pages (of possibly different books) and using a blow drier to try and get on the same page.
So again. Is this the right way to do democracy? I don't actually think there is an absolute answer to that question. Maybe the better question is actually: Is this the best way to do democracy?
I'm am no expert on how to organize democracy (and also I think the founding fathers just kinda read some books on it, and argued a bunch, and put this system together (at least they read some books --LOL)), but seriously is Congress a joke? Like I think they might be paid to play tug of war. And I think this system, i.e. having politicians stand for groups of people, was a pretty spiffy idea back when basically everyone was a farmer and the fastest way to get from Boston to Philly was by horse, or maybe by boat? I really don't know.
It makes sense, everyone go meet at the town hall, come to a consensus, tell Tom, then Tom rides off to wherever, and meets up with all the other Toms from the other towns. The people of the town go back to their labor intensive lives, and, over at that meeting place, the Toms duke it out until they come to a consensus or majority or whatever Toms did. After, maybe the Toms even chat a bit and have coffee.
So, I can like send a text to China in maybe at most 30 seconds with terrible signal, and I don't labor all day for food. Why are we still using this system? I think there may be at least a few ways we can restructure democracy, given the new technology since the late 1700s, that would make politicians not dance like monkeys.
I don't want to attempt to make this system because I am sure that infinitely many logical and logistical flaws would be pointed out and make me give up. I want to make the idea that sometimes planed change can be a good thing. Think about airplanes! I'm glad I'm not flying to Chicago in any sort of primitive aircraft. Or trains! We barely even use them anymore!
I think the power of ideas can be much stronger than weak prototypes. Or actually I don't think I'm the guy who should be making the prototypes.
But If I were making prototypes, I would throw around the idea of using something... [start old timey accent] something like a personal, individual voting booth-- for each and every American *GASPS*-- over something new and revolutionary: the World Wide Web! [end old timey accent]. Maybe we could minimize the role of Toms or dancing monkeys or whatever.