True democracy

The upcoming US and French elections have got me thinking. Democracy isn't a perfect system that gives power to the people, were electing people every X amount of years, but after that, we have no say in how the country is run.
To give an example, lets take SOPA, the most recent bill to attempt to pass in the US. The citizens had no official say in that. Sure, people protested, but politicians had no obligation to listen to them.
The only reason most politicians listen to people is to save their careers.
What do you think?

How long does it take to pass something in modern democratic government?
If it takes so long for some hundreds of politicians to pass something how long would it take if a couple of millions could have a say in the matter.
In short: Nothing would happen.

Well of course it isn't perfect. SOPA and its variations are in fact examples of that. However I would take it over any alternative forms of Government. Now on politicians yes your mostly right. Most do listen to the people to further their own careers. There are some politicians who truly are good and listen to the people to process what they say and act accordingly.

"Management of the few is the same as management of the many, it is a matter of organisation"
I'd say modern society is pretty organised.

We are organised, but you can't expect anything to be organized if you get a whole new system never used before.

We aren't a Democracy. No one here lives in a Democracy. And despite all this bitching and moaning about how undemocratic our Republican systems are, none of you want to live in a Democracy. (Baring Lenin Cat. <3 u bro.)

Representative democracy is not perfect but it's best we got as direct democracy is the most inefficient system possible.

Isn't your Hitler argument an argument against representative democracy? Hitler's policies weren't enacted by direct democracy. It was representative democracy which give him power, and then he passed enabling acts.

Unfortunately this is anti-democratic and I disapprove. I'm fed up with the middle-upper and upper classes representing the UK as Prime Minister. I'm fed up with our disastrously bad electoral system that wastes votes, encourages tactical voting, and keeps small parties out of the system.

I believe in a hybrid system. Representative democracy alongside direct democracy. Representatives typically pass legislation, but if the public can achieve enough signatures it can be put to a referendum. The public can also propose legislation based on signatures and trigger a referendum. Representatives would be unable to overturn any law passed by referendum. I would establish an independent media which is guaranteed by a constitution to receive a certain percentage of revenue, with its board being headed by MPs and the public. I would replace FPTP with a form of PR and would have public campaign financing. I would halve the number of MPs to make them more accountable.

Hitler used political and economic turmoil to strengthen the Nazi party's ranks with civilian mobs that had lost faith in the system. This propelled the party above other existing groups (like the socialists) who lacked the organization to attract members outside of their strict sphere of ideological fanatics. He then proceed to muzzle the voices of other interest groups and establish an Oligarchy out the ruins of a Republic.

Fuck Democracy.

That would be the Plutocratic element of the Republic. Blame specialization of labor.

You mean you want to move from a parliamentary system to a federal system like we have here in the states?

Well unfortunately, the last referendum we had resulted in a 'no', and as it was the first referendum in, well, so long I can't even remember, it's unlikely we'll get another referendum within the next billion years, (well, except Scotland) let alone one on the voting system, because of course the good people of Britain said no to evil foreign-type democracy in favour of our well-established organic democracy. Urrgh, I hate that phrase so much.

'Democracy' is not a type of government. It is a state of society - Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous. And nether does having elections automatically make a society democratic.

Yep.

Hell, they aren't even compatible.

Sure it does. It just doesn't make it a Democracy.

Direct democracy is inefficent. The whole idea is that people get a say in who gets elected: if people want to get re-elected, they'd best please at least a majority of the people. I can't think of which one off the top of my head, but one of the Federalist Papers discussed the subject.

Also, Pedro, Hitler was appointed, but whatever.

baring the fact that repersentative democracy is incredibly corrupted and insanely influenced by bourgeois democracy to the point where it isnt even worth calling democratic.

Take notes petty liberal pansies. This is what a real advocate of Democracy looks like.

*the superiority of the Republican system

Let's say you're right, that you can't have a full democracy with capitalism. If you have direct democracy and the people could vote for public ownership of whatever they like, isn't that just as democratic? If the public prefer private ownership of some things I wouldn't forbid it, that seems anti democratic. A democracy is rule by the people, and if the majority believe in private ownership of certain industries than I would support the right of the people to choose that, rather than force public ownership.

This has kinda been said before but the thing we consider democracy was originally never intended as a democracy, it was intended as a combination of monarchy (rule by one,as in the president, although in some countries this is replaced by prime ministers or minister councils), aristocracy (rule by a limited number of people, as in things like parliament and the entire group of politicians) and democracy (rule by the entire people, signified by the ability of most of the people to determine the power relations between the afformentioned political powers).

Also our current system of representative democracy wasnt meant for letting the entire people vote, originally it was designed for giving only the rich the ability to vote, which then got selectively and gradually repealed because of resistance by the rest of the population. So in essence we are living under a political system that was meant as a means for minority rule, but got adapted slightly so it could include minor participation of the people.

Do you have any better examples of a direct democracy leading to demagogues, as both Hitler and Socrates happened under representative systems (ancient Athens is a slightly more complex case then Weimar Germany but it had a de facto representative system). Plus this argument is actually one of the most used arguments for dictatorships around, making it quite paradoxically that an argument that is supposedly for use against dictatorship is actually one of the most used to support dictatorships.