Democracy, and how the US can push to become one.

It requires a "democracy" for representatives to be elected by the people.

They tried that in Commie, er, I mean California with gay marriage. The majority was against it and suddenly the liberals were no longer in favor of Democracy.

You just are ignorant about the fact that liberal causes mostly begins in California and extends to the rest of the states.

The United States isn't a democracy. It's a democratic republic.

You have to ditch the legislative branch and give all voting age persons the ability to write and vote for laws. That's the literal definition of a democracy.

I should also add that Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the most important legislation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

That's my problem. The mob should get to decide this stuff! Not that I am against gay marriage, but why should we make laws regarding our society based on the opinion of a few?

I'm for that. With only the exception of a branch for foreign policy to stay in place. I think we are perfectly capable of self running our own affairs just as good as the people in charge now. The decisions made would actually reflect the will of the people. Who could complain?

The rights of the minority need to be honored. Ever heard the joke about how a democracy is two wolves and a sheep debating what to have for dinner? That joke illustrates how voting is not always what maximizes the net benefit for the sum total of all people.

In that example, the net gain for a wolf from the "majority decision" (that the wolves should eat the sheep) is a nice dinner. Let's say that has a value of +1 for each of them. Now for the sheep, the net gain from that decision is maybe -50, because he dies. The net gain for society is -48, even though the majority of voters gain something. When a small number of people each lose a whole hell of a lot from a decision, while a large number each gain just a little, the bad for the small number can outweigh the good for the larger number of people.

So you need a constitutional democracy, not mob rule, to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

That's a really interesting way of putting it. Also a really good point. We definitely need a constitution, but why an Electoral College not bound to any type of vote and supreme Court that is appointed rather than voted on? Why can't we vote on our own laws so long as they fall in line with a constitution?

One reason certainly is that you've got to make changes to your Presidential Democracy (and thus to the constitution). Others are more on the praktikable side.

Who's 'democracy'?

The term democracy. That's what the thread was talking about.

Without any changes to our system of government we could become more "democratic" and more federalist by simply agreeing that most of the issues which tend to bedevil us and cause division should be left to each State to decide either through Proposition ballots or by voting for representative who reflect one's view on the subject.

One size doesn't fit all and what is right for the people of Idaho might not be right for the people of New York and visa versa. Since the citizens of Idaho actually live there and know their communities a whole lot better than the representatives of other States or federal judges, it would seem to make sense for them to decide democratically how life is ordered within their State.

The exceptions of course are issues having to deal with rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Unfortunately too many federal judges include in their job description the search for new rights that have apparently been hidden in the Constitution for hundreds of years. When they do, the erode the rights of State citizens to decide how they will live their lives with the borders of their State. There is very little that is democratic about politically appointed judges deciding whether or not a State can put restraints on abortion, or allow it's citizens to purchase and use drugs for recreational purposes.

This won't happen of course but it would require both parties to have greater respect for State's rights and not attempt to legislate through the courts on issues they can't win via the ballot box.

Don't we already have that?

State's rights as code:

States' rights as "code word"[edit]
Since the 1940s, the term "states' rights" has often been considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation and more recently, same-sex marriage.[33][33][34]
During the heyday of the African-American civil rights movement, defenders of segregation[33][35] used the term "states' rights" as a code word—in what is now referred to as dog-whistle politics—political messaging that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.[36][37][38] In 1948 it was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by white supremacist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond.[39][40] Democratic governor George Wallace of Alabama, who famously declared in his inaugural address in 1963, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"—later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!"[41] Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which some historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.[41]
In 2010, Texas governor Rick Perry's use of the expression "states' rights", to some, was reminiscent of "an earlier era when it was a rallying cry against civil rights."[42] During an interview with The Dallas Morning News, Perry made it clear that he supports the end of segregation, including passage of the Civil Rights Act. Texas president of the NAACP Gary Bledsoe stated that he understood that Perry wasn't speaking of "states' rights" in a racial context; but others still felt offended by the term because of its past misuse.[42]

Of course liberals hear States' Rights as code for one racist scheme or another...they see racism everywhere, and why not? It's been an effective weapon for them.

This is more the train I am riding right now. I agree completely

its true that "The US will never be an actual Democracy", but the problem seems to be that some are miss informed, and don't seem to know that most in the US know this. its not a secret or new discovery. you could be a day late and a dollar short in your informing others.

no real government is purely one type of government, though some may be predominantly be one type or the other, but a gov influenced by the people seems to be the intended result, and does exist in the case of the US.

With a brush as broad as yours, you could paint a barn door in one stroke.