This is a CounterPoint entry Edit
- "The Congress and Senate exist because when this country was conceived it was impractical for citizens to actually take part in a vote"
- Direct democracy was not an unattainable ideal. Many scholars would argue that the method of representative democracy was chosen over a more direct method because of a fear that the general populus would be too easily manipulated by a charismatic leader.
- I think the orginal quote gets it wrong slightly. It's not impractical for all citizens (I assume this writer means all...members of Congress are, after all, citizens themselves) to take part in a vote, meaning a singular vote. Direct democracy is easy enough in a situation like the Presidential elections. No problem. Get rid of the Electoral Vote, we don't need it. However, the Congress does more than take part in a vote. The vote on all kinds of stuff, and debate things all along the way. Legislation is very time-consuming and I know that I, for one, would not be able to give the due amount of time to vote responsibly (actual Congresspersons, even though it's their job, don't even have to time to vote responsibly.
- Secondly, I do think people are easily swayed by a charismatic leader. It's undeniable. That's why libertarian anarchists such as myself like to remind everyone that any democracy is a tyranny of the majority. The emphasis should be on taking power away from the oligarchy controlling government instead of finding a more agreeable way to perpetuate the problem. Ferguson 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)