Paul.L – in order to truly understand a word, you must go back to its roots. The word democracy is a Greek word. They used direct democracy and duties of the citizens included 1. participating in government, voting and discussing laws. 2. Volunteering to be judges and jury in law courts.

If government continued to use this system, there would be less court cases, because a jury of the people would have made decisions for the people, rather than govt overruling our lives via laws. And it would be hard to deny that most court cases involve people protesting govt interference in their lives via the abundance of laws.
When the American Founding Fathers were formulating the American structure of government they were keenly aware of this danger. “Thomas Jefferson stated that majority rights cannot exist if individual rights do not. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote or government having power to deny any inalienable right.”

“Direct democracy holds that citizens should participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and policies. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.”

“Only as long as juries of ordinary citizens have the final say, government remains the servant, not the master, of the people.” -- The Constitutional Treatise

To understand this more clearly www.democracydefined.org

Carroll’s quote relates to a person interfering with someone else’s rights – in these times, govt.

The other 2 quotes are complete insults to the voting electorate because they both refer to the people that vote them in and they have sworn to serve – as fools and idiots. Is that what we want our elected leaders to think of us, because they will decide laws based upon that opinion.

Some thought provoking quotes:

Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. People have the right to expect that these wants will be provided for by this wisdom. -- Jimmy Carter

I prefer tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity.-- Cicero

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.-- Friedrich Nietzsche

The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn.-- Alvin Toffler

As to my credentials, the research I have been involved in includes the history of the Westminster System, the Australian Constitution, High Court cases, govt laws, regulations, international law and cases, treaties and more. Under the guidance of Constitutional lawyers, for several HC cases to define and protect the rights we HAVE which govt are removing.

Ludwig -

"In regard to the need for 50% support for any particular motion, I was making the point that any time you have less than 50% support it is questionable whether you have a true mandate from the people as the result often depends upon the mechanics of the particular voting system. The will of the people is not then the decisive factor, which is clearly a long way short of the democratic ideal ."

Sound comments – under the preferential system we use, the people we actually want to be elected, very often are not. Each person reading this thread should investigate their council elections to understand this comment. If in a town of 10,000 people, most vote for 1 person, but place them as their 4, 5 or lower choice, this person will never get in. Yet those who are elected may have only received 10% of the overall vote. That is not majority rules.

Before we all make comments we should clearly and intelligently understand how the governmental, constitutional and voting structure currently in place works.

"If in a town of 10,000 people, most vote for 1 person, but place them as their 4, 5 or lower choice, this person will never get in. Yet those who are elected may have only received 10% of the overall vote.

That doesn't make sense. If you vote for someone, you rank them first. Even if most rank a person 4th or 5th, they could still get in. If by vote you merely mean ranking them above say, the second most popular candidate, then the second part makes no sense as you need 50% of the votes after distribution of preferences to win. It's like you are switching between extreme opposites of the meaning of the term 'vote', picking the least favourable interpretation of the outcome under each meaning, then combining the two as if they apply to the same meaning of the word vote.

SuziQ

If you really want to go back to the origins of Democracy, you might see that their version of people power was not something you would be comfortable with, since you would never have had a voice. Ancient Greek democracy was a men’s only club. According to best estimates the jury pool in ancient Athens was 6000 men from a population of roughly 250,000. You also had to be a native since foreigners were not allowed. Sound fair to you?

You are making a lot of assumptions SuziQ. If you are talking about making the whole electorate a jury, what makes you think that the majority is always right? Many times in our past gov’ts have passed laws which are majority supported and yet are clearly not appropriate. If, on the other hand, you think the juries should be small groups, what right does any small group have to dictate terms to a majority? A small group of people overturning laws made with the consent of the majority is not people power. That is an oligarchy. By the way, you are aware that juries decide matters of fact and not matters of law under our system of jurisprudence?

I challenge you to provide examples of laws made by the gov’t which you think were against the people’s wishes. Just because you don’t like a law doesn’t mean that it wasn’t democratically made.

As unpalatable as it is to you I completely stand by the all the quotes I gave above. Most people just do not care about political issues. That means they are unlikely to be able to make an informed decision on those issues.

I had a look at the website you gave me and I have rarely seen a less coherent, less intellectually rigorous website. See if you can find some academic backup for your arguments because just saying something doesn’t make it true. As for your credentials, they are irrelevant, the arguments you make and the evidence you back them up with are the only important things here

Also, suppose that one month after the election, everyone realises that the directly elected treasurer just isn't up to the job. He can't do long division and doesn't play well with others. How would you go about getting rid of him?

Kalin, just because a candidate wins 50% or more of vote doesn’t mean they have a mandate.

A mandate can only be won if an election is fought by and large over a single issue, the vast majority of voters vote according to their views on that issue, and the result is a resounding win for the relevant candidate. It would then only exist for that particular issue.

A mandate could be won with well less than 50% of the vote if there are several candidates.