Perhaps you are looking for a direct democracy, where citizens would take on the responsibility of the legislative branch and vote on each and every bill. I think there is a good reason why direct democracy doesn't work except on the smallest of scales.
I wouldn't want to live in a society where all of our rules and laws are determined by popular vote. That is a tyranny of the majority. With all due respects to Thomas Paine, just because a majority believe something to be true does not make it so..."common sense" is bs.
Also, calling our version of democracy a "sham" or an "illusion" is ignorant at best. That people are dissatisfied with the results or that opinions can be manipulated does not make it any less so. It is ultimately our own fault when we have things like single issue voters, a lack of voting and/or people who only vote during presidential election years, and those who fall for sloganeering.
There is a reason that billions of dollars are spent on political elections and not simply rigged. It's because your vote does matter.
It's a monarchy with executive powers the king delegates. Although it's a "nice" monarchy like Holland and Sweden, I'm not convinced they are proper democracies.
The problem is, there are loads of democracies. And they are democratic. Their people get to vote. But when the vast majority of the population of these democracies don't understand basic politics, economy and philosophy how can they vote for a fair and moral society. To quote Churchill:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Churchill
Like, the vast majority of the population confusing a Constitutional Representative Republic; where voters vote for their representative who then vote on behalf of their constituents, with a Democracy where citizens vote directly.
Citizens voting directly on policy issues is direct democracy, which is only one type of democracy. Other political arrangements, such as representative democracy, are types of democracy too.
Two different variants of democracy. Direct democracy, representative democracy. Both have inherit advantages and disadvantages. So, what's your point?
I suppose my point is the co-opting of the word "Democracy" by certain groups, to present a different idea of government than those they govern live under.
Which leads to the general population not understanding:
-Why there is an electoral college instead of a direct vote for the president.
-Why there are two divisions of the legislative branch, the House which is proportionally represented, and the Senate which originally was appointed by the State-Legislatures.
Companies like Facebook are pushing for more direct voting. Which should give you pause as the tyranny of the Majority is a very real thing, if you don't believe so look at California which voted down gay marriage despite being a liberal bastion. The average voter is not informed enough to vote on specific legislation, and find themselves easily manipulated by the mass media.
Removing another safeguard to prevent the tyranny of the Majority is never a good idea.
PS There is good reason when searching through the Constitution you will not see the Country defined as a Democracy, or even the word democracy used. Rather it is explicit in the fact that we live in a Republic
>The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Also, explain Napoleon who was Monarch over the Republic of France
Yes, our constitution guarantees that each state will be a republic, not a monarchy.
> Also, explain Napoleon who was Monarch over the Republic of France
The French state while Napoleon was emperor is known as the "First French Empire", which replaced the "First French Republic". Eventually, after both the Empire and the Old Regime were re-abolished in 1848, the resulting non-monarchical state was called the "Second French Republic". So your example actually supports my point.
There's no such thing as a "direct democracy and representative democracy". There's democracy and there's republicanism.
Democracy is the people electing on the issues. It wasn't conceived with universal vote in mind, in fact, it was very elitist in nature.
Republicanism is the people electing representatives to weigh the pros and cons of each choice for them. In practice it is much closer to our current system, its flaws included.
