Dear Calwest,

To summarise, you believe that ordinary people are stupid and should not have a say over the laws that the political class makes regarding what they must and must not do in their life.

This being the case, why have this expensive pretence of democracy to begin with?

Proportional representation, though more democratic, is still not perfect, but the drawbacks you attributed to it are exactly what we have in the current Australian electoral system: "That system does not guarantee the election of the most competent candidates, merely, perhaps, those with the biggest electoral machine and most money to spend on the campaign. Worse if preferential voting allows one very popular candidate to drag other candidates through." (your quote)

By "direct representation" I meant that citizens can vote on the issues rather than for candidates, but in practice they will only vote for the issues most dear to them, leaving the routine and unfamiliar issues to representatives of their choice, which one can change if they like at any time and per issue: http://voteflux.org

Yuyutsu, I'm sorry but Calwest is on the money, when he states that, well, in my words, people are stupid, un-informed, ill-informed, gullible, naive, arrogant, greedy, selfish, bigoted, racist, jees, I could go on, but the inconvenient truth that NO-ONE wants to hear is that the people are all of the aforementioned.
There are exceptions and there are standouts, but generally speaking, I agree.
Yuyutsu if you want confirmation of what I or Calwest speak of, you need look no further than this forum.

Dear Altrav,

Suffice that I don't know any person who is not selfish - should it mean that no one should be allowed an equal vote?

Perhaps if we could have a wise, informed, humble, unselfish and all-loving king, but alas I know of only one such king in history, King Janaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janaka): what are our chances of finding another one? What shall we do in the meantime?

Of the list you provided: "stupid, un-informed, ill-informed, gullible, naive, arrogant, greedy, selfish, bigoted, racist",
politicians indeed tend to be less un-informed and less naive than the average, but also above-average in arrogance, greediness and selfishness, while their other "qualities" are around average.

The question stands: should an individual, despite having a combination of the above traits to some degree or another, be allowed a say over the laws that dictate what they must and must-not do in their life?

Well some philosophies (including fascism and communism) answer this in the negative. If you adhere to one of those, then at least you should be decent and honest about it rather than pretend to have a democracy. I for one, am not as naive as to believe this fable as if we have one in Australia.