1) Not getting responses: I’m very surprised by this. Here in the UK, politicians do tend to answer letters, although often with a fairly formulaic response
2) Not being able to make a difference: mainstream views will inevitably be more important in a democracy than minority ones. But change does happen: what you need to do is try to persuade others to agree with your views. Or to join a group that’s in the mainstream but also close enough to you.
3) Whether a democracy is beneficial over other systems: democrats don’t have to just avoid rebellion. Plenty of dictatorial governments exist against the will of most of their people by having the army etc. in their control. Assuming for a moment that they don’t express the ‘will of the people’ in a strong sense (which is debatable), democratic governments are better for the people because
1) they can be replaced while still powerful in the country by an understood constitution, so they don’t hang on until physically forced out.
2) they have to live in constant fear of being kicked out by the people, which means they have to avoid very unpopular policies
3) under universal suffrage they have to worry at least a bit about all significantly sized minorities
Direct democracy is interesting, but has the attached risk of a lack of systematic policy. I’m no expert, but I believe that California has suffered because of its system of popular plebiscites/referendums: in essence, people vote for more public services and lower taxes. Any body/organisation benefits from long term direction of policy. Not to mention that not everyone can be an expert in national policy. You might be interested in this, though. It’s an online system where people can vote, but can also give someone else the ability to vote for them on individual issues. So you could nominate an environmental expert who agreed with your Green policies to vote on those, but a free market person to vote on other economic issues if that was your economic position, for instance. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8046270/Jolitics-the-political-network-that-plans-to-empower-voters.html
As for rule by randomers, I think this could be quite interesting to form a second chamber to check legislation passed by the elected parliament. But it’s a big ask and risks living up to the cliche about jury service: we’d be ruled by a senate of 360 (say) people who weren’t clever, important or busy enough to get out of it. Or, worse, who started salivating with power-lust when they won the lottery. Not to mention that it makes fixing who’s in charge much easier than elections, where people notice if unpopular people win.
I believe that California has suffered because of its system of popular plebiscites/referendums: in essence, people vote for more public services and lower taxes.
That’s at least half right, maybe more. California spends a lot on public services at every level. There was a ballot initiative in 1978 that permanently limited property tax rates. However, in America, property tax revenue usually goes to local governments—meaning, cities and counties. On the other hand, current California state income and sales tax rates are the highest in the Union. So, at the state level, California is generous with services and relatively high-tax, but still not high-tax enough to support its level of expenditure.
I think you’re mixing up a lot of things here.
1) Not getting responses: I’m very surprised by this. Here in the UK, politicians do tend to answer letters, although often with a fairly formulaic response
2) Not being able to make a difference: mainstream views will inevitably be more important in a democracy than minority ones. But change does happen: what you need to do is try to persuade others to agree with your views. Or to join a group that’s in the mainstream but also close enough to you.
3) Whether a democracy is beneficial over other systems: democrats don’t have to just avoid rebellion. Plenty of dictatorial governments exist against the will of most of their people by having the army etc. in their control. Assuming for a moment that they don’t express the ‘will of the people’ in a strong sense (which is debatable), democratic governments are better for the people because 1) they can be replaced while still powerful in the country by an understood constitution, so they don’t hang on until physically forced out. 2) they have to live in constant fear of being kicked out by the people, which means they have to avoid very unpopular policies 3) under universal suffrage they have to worry at least a bit about all significantly sized minorities
Direct democracy is interesting, but has the attached risk of a lack of systematic policy. I’m no expert, but I believe that California has suffered because of its system of popular plebiscites/referendums: in essence, people vote for more public services and lower taxes. Any body/organisation benefits from long term direction of policy. Not to mention that not everyone can be an expert in national policy. You might be interested in this, though. It’s an online system where people can vote, but can also give someone else the ability to vote for them on individual issues. So you could nominate an environmental expert who agreed with your Green policies to vote on those, but a free market person to vote on other economic issues if that was your economic position, for instance. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8046270/Jolitics-the-political-network-that-plans-to-empower-voters.html
As for rule by randomers, I think this could be quite interesting to form a second chamber to check legislation passed by the elected parliament. But it’s a big ask and risks living up to the cliche about jury service: we’d be ruled by a senate of 360 (say) people who weren’t clever, important or busy enough to get out of it. Or, worse, who started salivating with power-lust when they won the lottery. Not to mention that it makes fixing who’s in charge much easier than elections, where people notice if unpopular people win.
That’s at least half right, maybe more. California spends a lot on public services at every level. There was a ballot initiative in 1978 that permanently limited property tax rates. However, in America, property tax revenue usually goes to local governments—meaning, cities and counties. On the other hand, current California state income and sales tax rates are the highest in the Union. So, at the state level, California is generous with services and relatively high-tax, but still not high-tax enough to support its level of expenditure.