You're arguing for Direct Democracy over Republic. There are many advantages to a Republic, arguably the biggest of which is protection of minorities. In Direct Democracy, the 51% can and will oppress the 49%. The Republic insulates against that. James Madison does a great job explaining the theory of the Republic in Federalist No. 10.this proposed solution actually makes Senators turn into appointed positions like judges. As I was saying in my original post, I don't really consider appointed positions as representatives.
I'm actually not for a direct democracy, simply more representatives in our existing representative republic. I just wanted to make the distinction so we could discuss the structure of a representative republic and not confuse our structure with a democracy. I understand the tyranny of the majority, and we already basically have it even in our representative republic because of our ratio of representation. It can happen in either structure, but the representative republic only works if you continuously increase representation in line with the population. That also gets into why we have a bicameral legislature as well, since the original founders weren't entirely convinced that just direct correlation of population (House of Representatives) would adequately represent smaller states. I agree with this, I just think there should be more senators and more congressman both.
Certainly. How would you go about accomplishing that, without worsening the tyranny of the majority? How does that solve the problem?we already basically have it even in our representative republic because of our ratio of representation. It can happen in either structure
more representatives in our existing representative republic
there should be more senators and more congressman both.