And who said Locke was any more right than you. Calling a rock a flower dosn't make it any more so than calling what Canada has a demoracy. You still elect representitives to vote on your behalf which still makes what you have a republic. Yes, it is a select group of people and those are elected in a democratic method but once elected they are still a republic. They vote on things like how to spend money and on what. They vote on what the laws will be or not be.<quoted text>
So you confuse Democracy with 'voting'. Typical ignorance.
Locke did NOT define Democracy as synonymous with voting on each issue. Voting evolved as one mechanism to implement 'representational democracy' which is a whole different bag of worms.
The key specification of Democracy is 'power from the people'. By whatever mechanism is needed to ensure that they don't just 'vote for bread and circuses' while voting against paying for it.
Lots of ways to implement this. Voting is the LEAST effective, though it is possible with the advent of the Internet and instant messaging and wide distribution of communication.
The mechanism for implementing a Democracy could be voting and we have the communications to do it. It would require addressing security and identification. But this is not workable, not because it would require voting by millions (no problem) but because the public would vote FOR services and money and against paying taxes. California tried it with 'public plebiscites' with exactly this problem.
The keys to Democracy, since it IS power and thus decisions from the people, is an educated and informed public along with some mechanism by which the public is empowered. Voting one day a year to select dumb or dumber to rule all is the LEAST empowered public.
Wrong. Representational Democracy is not a republic. A Republic is a state in which the power comes from some select group of people that are NOT the entire public.
In the case of the US, the 'Republic' comes from:
first, the restriction of voting to the white landowners (back in 1776, Jefferson saw universal suffrage as 'rule by the mob' and rejected it).
Secondly because the Federal government is elected by the STATES, NOT the public. The individual states can hold a vote of it's citizens. But that is NOT binding on the state. It can send anyone it wants regardless of the voting. The constitution only specifies how many representatives and senators each state can send.
There is no requirement in the Constitution that makes voting in the states binding on the State Legislature.
These 'cutouts' were designed to keep the original colonies (and their colonial aristocracy) in control while adding lots of poorly populated new land.
Certainly I have a Parliamentary Democracy. The Parliament indicates the use of representatives.
You are astoundingly ignorant.
I also see you managed to confuse the elctorial colledge which is for presidential elections and how congressmen and sentators are elected. Those elected by the House and Senate are direct elections. While Presidents are in the end decided by Electorial Colledge which normally follows to popular election.
What Jefferson was protecting with his rule by mob was letting those who were not land holders vote. The idea back then is that the man who had land had a stake in what was happening. He was not just going to vote and leave for unexplored territory.
What you forgot is what sparked this discussion and was the call to disband a panel who would vote the way you wanted to have a democratic action of everyone. It would mean that you would have to face the facts that you and your friends are still the vocal minority and that the majority dosn't agree with you.