The return of ancient Greek Democracy: yes or no?

I was reading a textbook when I came about this enticing wuote:

"Everybody accepts the notion that direct democracy as practiced in ancient Greece would not work in a nation of 275 million people. Even if a small percentage of the total adult population wanted to participate in a direct democracy, the result would be a mass meeting that could not be held in even the largest structure in the world.".

Does anyone agree with this? What are your thoughts? My thoughts are too lengthy t detail here (that's what my research paper is for ).

In short, I believe this author (Roger LeRoy Miller) is a jackass and needs to get his head on straight. First off, not everybody accepts that notion. For one, I don't. I am a firm believer in a true democracy, and I believe America could quite easily be run by one.

Second, that second part (in italics) is one of the most asanine, idiotic comments I have ever read. This guy is a true screw-off. Do we vote in one giant building? Do we ever ALL meet in the same building to deliberate? Where did this guy come from?

Anyhow, I don't want to get too tied up here. I was just curious what your opinions on this were. I believe in direct democracy, and that our government is FAR from a democracy of any sort.
If any of you are really, really curious, I can send you a copy of my paper upon its completion (its about the massive corruption and problems in American government and how they can be changed; as well as a short description of the "perfect government" - this is a school assignment, but I plan to expand on it MUCH further)

It would be immpossible to arrange elections every time there's a small decision to make. That's why representative democracy is used today. The only way I can think of to use direct democracy is by making millions of voting machines that'll transfer your vote through phone lines or something.... It still would be very problematic as:
1) It will be pretty easy to hack into the system
2) People don't have time to listen to the explanations about every law and will probably vote without knowing what they're talking about
3) It will cost billions to produce such machines that'll have even minimal security.

Originally posted by G-Man
1) It will be pretty easy to hack into the system
2) People don't have time to listen to the explanations about every law and will probably vote without knowing what they're talking about
3) It will cost billions to produce such machines that'll have even minimal security.

Click to expand...

1) and 3) are the problems, 2) wouldn't be different from what we have today.
But the technology may be available in the future.

If we had ancient Greek democracy now, would we ostracize people like the Greeks did?

Originally posted by Becka
If we had ancient Greek democracy now, would we ostracize people like the Greeks did?

Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't even want to think about the other things the Greeks did...

It is way too impracticle.

Firstly Greek Democracy has stated was actually the democracy of the city state of Athens. In other words it wasn't the whole country of Greece that voted, it was the couple of square miles of ancient Athens. And not everyone could vote. You had to be a certain age, you had to own land. Oh yeah, you had to be a man.

They met every so now and again. It made sense that you had to meet up in those days, as tele-commuinications weren't around. So you may have a point. But the cost of running such a system would be immense.

Finally, democracy is just a buzzword these days. To make people seem important. We are republics. I have no wish to go vote on how much extra cents farmers should be payed per whatever.

You seem to forget that the government votes on many issues that most people simply don't care about, or haven't the time to study to get a full picture. I might think it's a good idea to increase funds for the arts. But at the expense of what? Defence? The public sector? Foreign Aid? And where should the increased funds go? Music? Facilities? A big huge opera house?

Senators/MPs/TDs whatever are employed to think about this.

I'm too scared to consider whether they actually do or not.

Originally posted by Hitro


Hmm, I don't even want to think about the other things the Greeks did...

Click to expand...

Not enough goats in America anyhow.

Originally posted by Hitro
2) wouldn't be different from what we have today.
But the technology may be available in the future.

Click to expand...

Today we have representatives who's job is to listen to all sides before making a serious decision. Allowing people to vote will mean that people that listen to the news 30 minutes a day will have to make the same decision as those who study things and who work on it 10 hours a day.
As far as technology is concerned, I don't think it would happen in the near future. Technology seems to be just more and more distruptable.

people, people, get a grip: not EVERYTHING would be identical to ancient greece! ie. all men and women over (say) 18 would be citizens (the specifics are too lengthy to discuss here). An, like in greece (since most of you seem misled), not everyone would be in the govt at the same time. God, imagine that maelstrom! No, instead citizens are picked and asked: do you want to be part of the Senate/House of Reps/whatever. This eliminates the capitalist and/or money-grabbing whores (yes, there is a difference) from dominating the government (not to mention the christians, whites, "pure" americans, etc etc). The average joe who works at SunTrust Bank as a teller could say "Hey, this is wrong" and actually be heard. Come on, people, think.

Yo could decline or accept. The only problem I see with the democracy is that the Greek way of life and thinking on life was entirely different. Back then, it was strengthen the mind, body, and soul; not get RICH!!! (Think: communism as a solution).

And if one person says communism won't work because look at Russia/Cuba/China/blah blah, let them be smited to Hell for being so idiotic and underknowledged (word?). Think about that one.

ps - I'm not trying to be mean, but I feel extremeley passionate on this issue and I hate it when misled half-knowledged, opinionated bozos start parading their anti-communism slogans. Am I communist? Not really, I'd say a reformed socialist (again, a big difference).

I beleive there should be more direct democracy through citizen-initiated referenda, and I beleive municipal governments should be no larger than 100,000 to allow for as much direct participation as possible. But I have to admit, I too fee that to go any farther IS impractical, however desirable.

Exsanguination, I only say this because I have been at political meetings of 1,000+ (and chaired one of 200+) and I have to tell you, even at that level, it's chaos.

And not the good kind, either.

R.III

If you think that extremists run countries now, just wait until direct democracy. The only people that will go and vote again and again are people that believe very strongly in an issue.

As hard as it is to believe, people get poll fatigue.

"underknowledged (word?)"

I don't know, but I like it.

Well this type of government you expplain does sound interesting. But supposing your random name selector picks that of someone deemed unfit. For example: criminal record, mentally impaired or whatever reason. How do you decide which people are eligible to go on this list which the random generator would act on.

How do you know that people would be uncorrupt. I see just as many people going for it for the money as in the current system.

Originally posted by Baleog
[BWell this type of government you expplain does sound interesting. But supposing your random name selector picks that of someone deemed unfit. For example: criminal record, mentally impaired or whatever reason. How do you decide which people are eligible to go on this list which the random generator would act on.

How do you know that people would be uncorrupt. I see just as many people going for it for the money as in the current system. [/B]

Click to expand...

From "Alexander the Great" by Agnes Savill (from a chapter describing the Greek polis):

"It was considered a duty incumbent upon the citizen to know the character of the magistrates whom he could elect for executive posts; (the few "executive" there were) this stipulation disqualified from voting those who were illiterate and impoverished."

Not sure what he meant by "impoverished", as even the most poor were allowed to vote. This brings up another issue of how "voting" if you may was interpreted and done in ancient Greece (as opposed to the "random" election system). I must catch some shut-eye now, but tomorrow I'll be back! I expect to get the skinny on the voting/"random" idea - I'm not how voting was implemented. I never heard of it.

Anyways, to answer your question, the last part alludesto the fact that the insane or those with criminal records, etc etc were excluded from governmental practices unless under extreme circumstances (ie the person has proven himself sane and worthy of being part of society again). This brings up the issue I referred to earlier about how Greeks always strove to be perfect, not rcih or powerful. Money brings lust for power, and power brings lust for money (by any means).

Thats all for now.

--Ex

Once again:read this link,at least the grids if you don't wanna read the pages.

www.iandrinstitute.org/indepth/document9/intro.htm


Many people know what I think about that issue.

I want association-led law making and approval/disapproval of these laws in refenda.

And G-man...the representative system is the biggest utopia.

In France,1 representative=100,000 people...everybody in the majority follows the govt's word.

The govt makes 36% of the laws.60% by Brussel;4% by the parliament.

Many representatives don't go to the Parliament moreover.

About ancient Greece,only 20% of the people had the right to vote.

Originally posted by Damien
The govt makes 36% of the laws.60% by Brussel;4% by the parliament.

Click to expand...

God is it that bad? 60%?? Hell, if I do move to Britain, maybe I will start to lobby for an invasion of Europe after all. 60%!! Unbeleivable!

R.III

Well, maybe it would decrease the unnecessary overkill wording in current congressional bills (2000+ pages for many of them now), and keep each "bill" (each item to vote on) focused on one thing (i.e. no rider amendments unrelated to the primary substance of the bill, unlike today). Drastic simplification of bills and laws would be absolutely necessary in a direct democracy. And that would be a good thing, IMHO.

One part of me likes the idea--no hidden agendas or "pork barrel" deals buried in our bills and laws, no corruption possible (how can you "bribe" two hundred million potential voters?), and very likely an increased awareness of the general public of the issues they will vote on--some may remain apathetic, but I think more people will take on the onus of their new responsibilities, and take at least some time to educate themselves.

But I think limited constitutional government is best (me being a libertarian and all), and I say that with the implication that what we have now is not really that either. A constitution lists what the government CAN do, item by item. What is not there, the government is not supposed to do, unless it goes through the process of making an amendment. I wonder how many people in this country are truly aware of that fact--something not even the most venerable Supreme Court justice can refute in good faith of the intentions of the writers of that document, and of their responsibility to the people as outlined therein.

What limited federal government does is delegate most of the decisions where they belong--to states, and even more importantly to communities and individuals themselves. Communities are strengthened thus, and individuals have more responsibility--and will become more responsible if they wish to survive and thrive.

I actually have no problem with direct democracy on a community level--people know each other, and what they vote on has direct implications to people they must see, work, and live with every day, as well as themselves. They cannot be removed from the consequences of their decisions, unlike congressmen and bureaucrats safely ensconced in Washington.

But on the federal level? With our ongoing and growing disrespect for the Constitution, and our convoluted legal gymnastics we use to skirt around its constraints, I am afraid that direct democracy would become mob rule, where 51% of the people can hold sway over 49% in more and more aspects of their lives. If we truly adhered to our constitution, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all I daresay--for it wouldn't be necessary. Government would be so unobtrusive and unthreatening and FOCUSED on what it is really there for, that we wouldn't be lamenting over the corruption (what favors could the elite buy if congress can't sell?) that I suspect is the main reason alternatives are being discussed.

Just my two pesos worth....

I don't think it would work very well in our western countries now. Most of the people don't care of politics and don't want to take care of it. A direct democracy won't change this. It is a real problem because politics is becoming like a job : dedicated to specialists and they are confiscating the power of the people.

What if 51 percent of the people wanted to install a dictator? What do you do then?

Install a dictator of course. Democracy doesn't work.

I like the idea of direct democracy on a local, community level. On a national scale, it would subject the populace to the ''tyranny of the majority'' and that is an undesirable outcome, to say the least.