Head of government: Can anyone name a western democracy...

I agree completely.

 

Thanks for a really great list!

 

Funny how this was never an issue until Hillary lost.

 

The states are way too large for today's population. All cities should be independent city states, rural areas should be small jurisdictions.

But hey, the states are a whole lot better than the central government.

 

I believe it was Plato.

 

Well it was an Issue when Gore lost and I'm sure it was an Issue when Tilden lost as well.

 

Pure Democracies suck, Everything is either so bifurcated that it's all but impossible to get anything of consequence done as in Itlay, or 51% constantly are screwing the other 49 just because they can. There has to be some sort of limit on what the majority can do or you are screwed.

 

If the inferred claim made in the OP is true - and there are no countries who elect leaders on the basis of popular vote - and nothing is ever done by Gov't is done on the basis of the popular vote - how do you come to the conclusion that the popular vote is overrated ?

 

Another interesting question would be to name a western government where the legislature and the head of government is not selected by the legislature ... other than the usa

 

In the end it doesn't matter politicians directly elected will form coalitions based around what ever gets them elected and push whatever agenda gets them the most votes, look at Venezuela. And a bill of rights is only as good as the people's will to enforce it at the ballot box.

 

They are appointed by politicians... It Took FDR nearly five years to reshape SCOTUS in his own image so they'd stop declaring half of what he did unconstitutional.

 

Nope just pointing out that over time the judiciary is malleable as well. It just takes longer.

 

Cough!! Cough!!! Bush in 2000 lost the popular vote, it was a problem then too.

 

what about cost? There surely has to be an expense factor when it come's to having people vote directly on policy issues. Americans already hate paying taxes, i have to imagine the expense of setting up a system where people vote multiple times a year would not be favorable.

 

And anyone with half a brain should be thankful it did. Mob mentality is never acceptable, be it in justice or politics.

 

People act as if stuff not done by popular vote is not democratic. Delegated authority is everywhere, electing representatives to decide certain things is not any less democratic than doing them directly.

 

There really isn't one. It helps if there is an entity that is appointed to represents the states as the US senate used to be prior to the 17th amendment, but governt's like that horrible old saw about women, "You can't live with it and you can't live without it." Governments will invariably usurp all the power the people will let them that is their nature and that of far too many men as well.

 

It depends on what stuff the Gov't is doing. This is a question of "legitimacy of Authority". If the thing in question is the legitimate authority of Gov't - simple majority mandate is good enough.

If the Gov't is making law that messes with individual liberty - it is not enough. Both Classical liberalism and Republicanism refer to this (messing with individual liberty based on a simple majority mandate) as "Tyranny of the Majority".

This is why the principle on which this nation was founded puts individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The question is then "what is the legitimate authority of Gov't" with respect to individual liberty ?

 

Truly the Hare-Clark system is beyond me. The NZ one is too