[melted]

Which, nevertheless, means that people aren't really ruling, and therefore it's not what one could legitimately call "people's rule". Their elected "representatives" (which, let me remind you, don't give a shit about their constituents between elections) write laws. The president, elected by the electoral college people elect (who also doesn't give a shit about the constituents) signs the laws and commands the army which will suppress any challenge to the authority of the federal government with violence if need be. And courts (in which judges aren't elected at all and don't have to give a shit about anybody), interpret the laws.

Why do we need so many middlemen? Is this _really_ a democracy? Or is it a mere visibility of "rule of the people" designed to keep the working class, well, working, for the benefit of the ruling class?

[gwright]

You are asking if this is a 'direct democracy'. No, it isn't a direct democracy even though the term 'democracy' is almost always used without clarification.

For some reason you are arguing as if a direct democracy would somehow magically address the problems you outline for a representative democracy.

But in all but the smallest organizations, a direct democracy is simply unworkable and so your complaints don't really move the discussion forward. Do you want to go to the ballot box once a week to vote on every decision currently made by your representatives at the local, state, and federal level? Do you think that is more workable than a representative mechanism?