You can call it houses or chambers of a parliament, or Senate and the House of Represenative (that's the official name of the U.S. Congress), but the idea still the same--to make bureaucrats less powerful and to subject them to more control. This is one of the ideas that formed the U.S. government structure, and it's a powerful one. Not to say that our system is perfect, but I do believe that the basic structure we have is better than that of the parliamentary system, as it provides for more stability and better accountability.Originally Posted by Womble
Democratic? Yes. But to what degree? I think that if the electorate is kept out of the loop on such decisions, it is dangerously close to authocracy. My argument in this case is not so much to what Sharon does or does not do, but the failure and fragility of the general structure of the government. The question of the referendum really raises another, and really more important question: does the opinion of the citizenry count?It seems to me that we arrive to different conclusions from the same place. I also believe that public vote should determine the general direction, and I also take into account many small issues when I vote. However, once my candidate is elected, I prefer judging him by the results at the end of his term rather than kick him out the moment he does something that is not to my liking. (Unless of course this candidate commits a crime incompatible with public service. If Sharon was convicted of corruption, I'd be the first to demand that he stands down). If his results are unsatisfactory, he isn't getting my vote anymore. Ever. Even as a lesser of two evils. Is that not democratic?
In my country I know that it does. I could argue that there is no need for a popular vote on whether the city of Los Angeles should borrow money for beach clean-up. It is easy to make a case that this could be left to experts and professionals. And that's just a relatively simple issue. There is no question that far more complex issues would be voted upon as well.