[Aurelius]

Then your original statement (post 8)should be modified to read" "There's actually a system in place right now that allows a person with opposing views to get things changed more to his liking, provided he can get agreement from 51%, or more, of the voters."

Quite a change, I would say. In fact, for all practical purposes it renders your statement empty. It is the recognition of the futility of "working for change within the system" that has, in many if not all cases, led to domestic terrorism. That is not to say that the terrorism is justified. It is to say that by holding up a false promise of the possibilty of significant change through participatory democracy, government sets up people for the frustration which results in rage against the system and, in some cases, to a resort to violence.

[slhill]

I don't get it. Why, in principle, should you be able to change the system if you can't persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to go along with your proposals?

[bond7]

Quite a change, I would say. In fact, for all practical purposes it renders your statement empty.

What are you suggesting? A change of policy when you can get 15% of support? Where does that leave the other 85% who disagree? What is a democracy anyway? Isn't it majority rule or are you trying to go after that too? That's now a dictatorship.