Boo.
Having a particular elected dictator dismissed, thanks to a rule of politics that applies to one particular jurisdiction, proves nothing.
The laws imposed on the people, before and after the regime change, will continue to be imposed and fresh ones will be passed whether or not the majority of the people approve of those laws.
Your error is in believing that those politicos who have been elected as “representatives” of the people really act in accordance with the will of the people.
They do not. Apart from good old “Election Day” the people have no power of any consequence.
You proudly claim to be, government teacher. From my standpoint you are probably misleading your very young, trusting and unworldly students in your Civics class by trying to convince them that by some strange kind of telepathy, telekinesis, or political alchemy the will of the people somehow makes itself manifest in the political process simply by virtue of the fact that they have each exercised their right to cast a vote for some politico or other in an election that is held from time to time.
I have on previous threads given a summary of how the will of the people could be ascertained with a high degree of accuracy. You don’t need an expensive referendum, just a small group of the people chosen at random from the electoral roll. A jury of 5 men and 5 women to act as representatives of the people to consider and decide on proposed legislation, point by point. The politico (for whom it will be illegal to refer to him or her self as a “representative”) being obliged by law to act in accordance with the jury’s wishes. (The politico’s compliance with the jury’s wishes to be matter judged entirely by the jury in question, not a court).
Ah yes, you might say, some of these bills run to half a million words, and we need someone with the intelligence of an expert professional politician, such as the alcohol brain damaged Senator Ted Kennedy to consider them carefully.
That is nonsense, of course.
The USA also has about 180,000 pages of regulations in the federal sphere alone, to help oil the wheels of government.
In my opinion, that is insane. No law needs to be longer than an easily digestible 2 to 4 thousand words in length. Ideally, there should be an upper limit imposed by any constitution on the amount of legislative verbiage that can exist at any given moment.
Perhaps a maximum limit of 6 million statutes of no more than 10,000 words each could be set. Peru has already exceeded that limit. No one knows what the law is in that country, but I’m sure it must cover everything in the known universe by now.
Because I regard the present system as a transparent fraud (but, I agree, more subtle than the obsolete Divine Right of Kings fraud) you accuse me of laziness. I don’t believe you have the imagination to understand how powerless the average elector is in his or her ability to influence government policy at any level.
However, you should at least be able to understand the utter pointlessness of someone voting in an election if they reside in a district where one party or another cannot lose.
In such circumstances, unless one has a casual stamp collecting kind of interest in politics, it is not a rational activity to: -
Vote in such an election (whether for or against the party you prefer is immaterial).
Acquaint yourself with local political issues.
Acquaint yourself with the local political “representative”.
Perhaps if you had been born, raised and educated in a different age, you might have been a believer in the Divine right of kings, the sole practical purpose of which was to try to solve the problem of continuity of government by establishing rules of succession and to maintain stability. Don’t knock it too much. It was the best they had for a long time, but having lots of wars of succession was the main bugbear.
By the time it became more than 80% successful at the smooth succession task – mid 1800’s – it had become irrelevant, having been replaced by the elective dictatorship model. (I lump together the Village Headman model – where one man is deemed fit to govern a country – the USA, France, and most South American Countries - and the parliamentary style, Council of Village Elders model, committee of elected dictators. A distinction with no difference).
You have dutifully and faithfully swallowed everything that has been fed to you on the generously heaped plate handed to you by your mentors, from the time you were the age of your current group of young students, or before, until your graduation from whatever Arts faculty you attended.
All I have done is question the validity of similar pap fed to me from an early age about what is so often incorrectly referred to as “democracy”.
You may call me lazy for refusing to act as though I believed in the pap fed to me, but I’ll refrain from calling you something in return.
That’s where most real-life Vote Nazis are coming from too, as far as my experience goes.
Which village? Which headman? Exactly what “traditional” society are we talking about here, and why should we accept a vague allusion to its unspecified customs as a functional definition of dictatorship in a modern democracy?