Democracy exists only in exercise of democracy

We all think of democracy as government by the people and for the people. After that, the details get fuzzy. On the online "Wikipedia" page defining democracy, about 30 different types of democracy are listed. Further exploration of these is a bewildering journey into human tought and endeavor. But with all of these methods for respecting both the rights of people individually and in groups, democracy is apparently a goal for human behavior. Democracy exists in actions towards this goal. Without such action, it is only an idea.

Most would agree that democratic behavior exists in individual actions to stand for the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for all people. In order for them to exist for one, they must exist for all. To deny them to another will inevitably cause denial of them to oneself, to ones children, or to both.

Apparently, democracy depends upon eternal vigilance of individuals to uphold these core ideals. Those who do not stand for them are bound to lose them. To defer the understanding and daily renewal of democracy is to lose it. Democracy is not something that is arrived at and then left to others to maintain. Any system of government can become a vehicle of oppression by those who seek excessive power over others. Apparently we all need to be continually informed and active in improving on democratic ideals.

Obiviously, with the large numbers of ways that democracy is attempted, peoples are still working to improve its performance. Performance is the critical yardstick by which a democracy is measured.

In the face of the globalization of humanity, we are thus incumbent to examine the performance of democracies around the world. The U.S. democracy is the most well know, and perhaps the most enduring on a long scale. It is notable as much for its mistakes as it is for its successes. It is the one I am most familiar with, so I will discuss it here.

In current days, US democracy is once again in turmoil. As a representation government, it is often perceived as being eclipsed by international corporations which have allegiances to segements of society, and less so to society as a whole.

One perceived symptom of dysfuntion in current US demcracy is discussed here.

Representational plurality of elections has produced respresentation in the three branches of government accountable only to small segments of the public. Membership at the highest levels in these branches of government is not truly represented by class, gender, race, age, ethnic origin, religious belief, or philosophy.

Perplexing questions arises. At the highest levels of government, why do we not use a yardstick to measure true representation of these communities? Why is this question not an important ongoing issue in national discussion?

Although genuine efforts seem to want to reform the election process by changing the funding rules for elections, successes here may not arrive at significantly greater voter participation or representation.

Because of the lack of adequate representation inherent in plurality voting processes, voting is not seen by the majority as a viable vehicle for representation.

How can this be changed?

First, we all need to become better educated on both our existing constitution and the ways that other democracies either undeperform or outperform the US constitution. We need to objectively discuss what works and what doesn't .

Many view the American democracy at the turn of the millenium as more of a power struggle among politicians and economic interests than as a policy vehicle for enhancing adequate representation of people. This apparent disturbing development has percolated down through society, causing polarity and disillusionment. This trend may possibly be reversed, but first it must be recognized for what it is. Then efforts can begin to change it.

First, for those who agree with the previous assumptions, we all need again to re-evaluate and prioritize our ideals. As far as representation goes, we may decide we need to develop extensive improvements in out election and decision making processess.

As the highest levels of government are the most visible and most familiar to the people, possible ideas for changes should perhaps be directed there first.

One proposal would be to have each of the major offices in each of the major branches composed not of single individuals but of true representation of the voters. This would be akin to a parliamentary style election, with necessary changes to ideas here implemented by discussion and performance.

For instance, let us examine how truer representation might be implemented in the office of an elected official of about average power on a national level, that of a US Senator. For a moment consider this. In the home state elections for this senator, the voters could vote for perhaps 5 representatives out of any political constituency which wants to be on the ballot. Perhaps one vote would be mandantory to vote for one, which would be for one of the candidates actually running under the banner of representing one's own economic class. Other votes could be for the 4 other candidates that most prioritize ones wishes.

For example, an individual might vote for an individual who represents a specific issue stance on the environment, or immigration, or a workplace issue, or on agriculture, education, health care, reproductive rights, gender rights, transportation or whatever. Communities have many various interested parties, and the senate considers a wealth of issues.

Each voter would get 5 senator votes among all of the candidates representing this electorship.

When election tallies are made, each candidate would get that percentage of vote for election issues in Washington DC. The Washington DC office for the Senator for that state would not belong to an individual, but to the candidates from that senatorial region.

With the informational network of todays world, the various candidates would mostly continue to live in their states, but be able to vote on Senate issues through an encrypted network.

Their wages would come out of a fixed amount, reflecting the percentage of votes they got in the election. Their votes on issues would also reflect the percentages of their voter support.

By having a system like this, we would greatly increase particiaption and ownership of a more minformed citizenry in policymaking and implementation. We would also make public office a vehicle for serving the citizenry and not an individuals career ambitions.

In this way, every persons vote would have a variety of representation on Senatorial issues. To determine passage of issues before the senate, all of the individual senatorial votes would be weighted votes, according to the amount of support that individual has garnered in the elections.

Such process would have the outcome of actually showing both the spevtrum of ideas
on specific issues and their support for them. Resources of the national budget would reflect the accumulated vote totals for the voters wishes. National policy would arise from a national dialog and and personal appreciation of various citizens needs and wishes.

Some may perceive a process such as this unwieldy, difficult to understand and implement. But in today's complex world, the answers to complex problems humanity faces need to also be complex. The time for simplified solutions is past.

We need involvement of all sectors of humanity in resolving a wide range of complex issues.

To respond to terrorism, we need to understand it. We need for oppressed peoples to have voices and be part of the greater decision process.

To counter religous conflicts we need representation from all persuasions, investing all of us in both dialog and decision making, truly striving to arrive at solutions guaranteeing non-oppresive religous rights.

To counter global warming, we need truer representation of interested parties in the decision-making process of funding global responses on local and industrial levels.

These are only examples of some of the curreent issues we face. Certainly, ideas here can be improved on. They are only ideas and should only be considered for their resonance and worth.

The success of any institution is dependent upon its ablity to adapt to changing times. The incentive for this article is in response to what many perceive to be the apparent crumbling of some of the structural components of the American consitution.

In summary, these are initial attempts to assess if the constitutional processes are somewhat to lame for present divisions in American society, and if so,why this is happening. Finally, if one sees problems, it is incumbent to propose at least some kind of solution. With a wonderful structure to begin with, the American Constitution, perhaps it is time to replace some of the crumbling components with modern composite ideas. The founders expected nothing less than for those to follow to carry the torch of freedom to future generations.

Freedom of speech is the first amendment to the constitution. Criticism of current policies in ones time was not only allowed, but mandated by the founding fathers. I for one, have long admired the great amount of thought and dialog that went into the formation of the US constitution. I also recognize that many before that event and many since have furthered the great ideals to which humanity aspires.

I also know I am but one of myriad ephemeral voices in the pageant of life on this planet. All I can do is attempt to be true to myself, to attempt to further the ideals I believe in.

Democracy exists only in one's exercise of democracy.