"Molecular Politics is a crackpot idea as a method to change how our current form of democracy works. Changing the structural form of our government to allow direct representation might work. I find it difficult to imagine it working any worse than the form that our current system has degraded to."
Why are you so attached to the attack words such as "crackpot" when referring to my ideas? I would hope we could carry on a conversation here that shows some mutual respect. Rather than just calling the idea crackpot why don't you give a reason why it will not work. I haven't seen any credible ones. For instance, you say that no one would want to be a Molecular Candidate. Wrong. Larry W and many others would be happy to be. After all it would be a chance to be a part of history. I would be happy to do it if I deemed it the best use of my time.
The alternative to this idea is to expect the system itself to change and that idea is much more unrealistic and more difficult to produce than Molecular Politics. Molecular Politics is our best bet because it doesn't rely on changing the current Constitution or system. All it requires is finding people to run who commit to the idea and then win election through standard means.
Under the current system Congress would never put up with delivering the power of direct vote to the people as a whole. Even when there are initiatives on which people vote Congress and the judiciary often seek to overturn them or call them unconstitutional because they do not respect the will of the people.
Hoping for term limits under current circumstances is also pie in the sky because Congress is not going to vote itself out of a job.
Molecular politics will bring in direct democracy in steps without requiring the system to change. It therefore has a chance of succeeding.
If you have a better idea for reform let's hear it. If not, I would cease using the word crackpot.
Copyright © 2008 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved