The problem is...
 

Low voter turnout. When only a passionate minority (voters) decide an election, the outcome can be swayed simply by which group of loonies are more motivated to show up and perform their civic duty.

Our representative Republic was designed to reduce the probability of this happening. The internet can defeat this safeguard by allowing the louder, more emotional loonies to convince a greater number of undecided, apathetic idots (the majority) to vote in favor of really destructive legislation, like the crap we are getting now from our Federal representatives...

Totally depends on the issue.



On a totally related subject:

Just 9% Want No Limits on What Federal Government Can Do

Friday, August 06, 2010

Eighty-six percent (86%) of voters nationwide say there should be “limits on what the federal government can do.” A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only nine percent (9%) believe the federal government should be allowed to do most anything in this country.

These views are overwhelming shared across virtually all partisan and demographic lines.

The only exception is America’s Political Class. By a 54% to 43% margin, the Political Class believes the federal government should be allowed to do most anything. Mainstream voters reject that view by a 94% to three percent (3%) margin.

At a July 24 Town Hall meeting, Democratic Congressman Pete Stark of California may have inadvertently articulated the Political Class view. In responding to questions about whether or not the recently passed health care law is unconstitutional, Stark said, “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life." In response to a follow-up, he added, "The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country." 9%

There are limits on what the federal g'ment can do. It's called The Constitution.

Three more reasons why I’m glad we live in a constitutional republic.

Landowners have a stake in the system, they own a part of it.

One vote per property? Apartment building owners have one vote or many? The guy who owns 2000 acres has the same vote as a guy who owns a trailer and lot?

I suppose you could give more votes to the guy who "owns" the most slaves, err, I mean, serfs, no, has the most "employees" working for him, yeah that's it, since they are dependent on his providing for their well being.

So if a person loses their property, then they lose their vote?

And only landowners should be taxed?

Sign me up. As long as I don't have to pay taxes or be drafted I fully support this system.

I think that voting should be restricted to people who have paid down a minimum of 75% of their home, and also make above a certain amount of money per year. Also, there should be a sliding scale for taxation. Tax the poor at a higher percentage, and give them an incentive to get ahead in life. After all, they tend to use the so called free services at a much higher rate. They should really be paying their share.

They already pay for the schools, renters don't pay property taxes.

One person one vote, but they should have to own something, even a trailer as long as you own the ground under it and its not a lease.

And what about the people like me who don't fit your narrow idea of who should be represented? I pay may fair share of taxes and I vote.

Fortunately the majority doesn't think like you. If they did I would be happy to exercise my other amendment rights so happily guaranteed to me.

If that day comes this country or your even your own Canadia will be no more freer than North Korea or China.

Sorry, but when it comes to disenfranchisement I don't take anyone who suggests it seriously.

In case you all forgot from civics class, the constitution is a "living" document meaning it can be changed to adapt to the times. Enfranchising more people with that right to vote helped end so many of the injustices in this country.

Back when this country was founded most people didn't go to school or have any formal education. That is why the original constitution kept most people out of the process.

Today at least most people have some k-12 education. You can debate the quality of it all you want, but compared to back in the day it is a lot better.

Please...landlords pay their property taxes, with the proceeds from rent. Renters may not directly pay the taxes, but it's ludicrous to suggest they make no financial contributions towards public services funded via property taxes.

Back to the poll question - anyone who says "yes", is against the concept of freedom, plain and simple. "Majority rules" can not coexist, with the ideology that certain inalienable rights exist for individuals in a society.

To paraphrase an oft used example - tell us how well "majority rules" works out, when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.

It's interpreted as a living document. it however isn't a living document. I don't see it breathing anything....
It would still be perfectly applicable if clad in iron with the original intent left as solid fact. The more times change, the more they stay the same. The people allowed to vote should have to at the very least make a minimum salary. The minimum could be debated, but they definitely Should NOT be on welfare. People on welfare who do not want to work and be productive not only have a stake in keeping the system the way it is, but also increasing the money handed to them by government, IOW from the pocket of the productive.
(this is not to say that if someone loses a job and need a couple of month's worth of help until they find a new job that they should lose the right)
As for Kanukistan, your prediction is accurate. The crybabys and do-gooders have made it so that about 40% of the population is doing any kind of productive work. A little over 25% of the people work for the government, and the balance are on benefits... The 40% of productive people are getting smaller and smaller each day. A good portion of immigrants coming here (that I have observed) work some easy job for a year, and then spend the rest of their lives on welfare. But I can't complain about that.... To complain about their welfare lifestyle is discrimination...
The police departments are full of criminals with immunity. Every once in a while one of those criminals is fired as a token effort to placate the public if said criminal did something outrageous enough (but said criminal gets a really nice severance package under the table). In my area, if you want drugs, you talk to an off duty cop... And most cops I watch in the city here spend more than 3/4 of their shifts in coffee shops yaking away with their buddies or spending hours sleeping in their cruisers on some side street....
there are people complaining about a nurse's shortage in Canada, yet when I watch them in the hospital, they spend hours gossiping... I had to sit in the hospital for 5 hours, and there was this group of 8 or so nurses that were just standing around talking about other people around. They were shutting off the calls from people, and just gossiping. They were there when I got there, and they were all still there when I left. A few of them left and came back, but I think they just went to the bathroom, or to the cafeteria... I asked an orderly if those nurses actually did anything, and he said not really. They just stand around, or sit on the desk gossiping. Can't fire them because the legal battle would cost more than keeping them employed...
This is what the system of democracy and the right to vote has brought about. That is why I"m against it...
The whole idea of democracy being a vote between 2 lions and a lamb about what's for dinner is more than true. The productive are the lambs...

Just curious, but what is so "magical" about being a land owner?

The mere son or daughter of a landowner would not have the right to vote absent real property ownership. With a smaller voting base, groups of like minded landowners could monopolize legislation, including making it more burdensome to acquire land, no?