Mike Ossipoff wrote:
>Actually, I believe that Americans, with their suspiciion of
>"the politicians" would accept direct democracy (DD) long before they'd
>accept PR. After we get better single-winner elections, we should
>try to get DD. People might accept that, where they would never accept
>PR.
I'll probably get cruicified for this, but I'm not convinced DD is a good
idea.
>Now, this is off the subject, but I'd like to add another possible
>part of the solution: Partition. Why should all these people of widely
>divergent and mutually hostile beliefs and agendas have to all draw
>the same national boundary around all of them, so that they can fight
>about which of their factions should govern? It makes no sense, does
>it. So partition the country according to what governements the various
>people want.
This is part of the problem: the disproportionate power of geography. If 5
million people in Florida have a particular point of view they have a lot of
power (and even more if they get to run their own country because of it),
but if the same 5 million people are spread across a wide geographical area,
they have no power at all. As a general rule, the more parocial national
governments are (and your little nation-states partitioned on the basis of
common points of view are likely to be the most parochial of all) the less
tolerant they are of minorities, and the more likely they are to descend
into despotic majoritarianism.
