This morning's newspaper contained an article by the editor in which he lamented the lack of a better informed electorate.

He began the article by explaining how the Sheriff, a well liked man, after having begun his candidacy for a second term, and "having the money and the support of enough voters to win," abruptly quit the race.

He then went on to tell how he had just returned from a series of think tank meetings in Washington, D.C., and that a common theme throughout the meetings was how difficult it is to get "the best and brightest" leadership for the country whether from the right, left, or the center. What he meant was that these bright people were balking at running for public office because the electorate insisted upon knowing an official's private business as well as their public business.

Is this really true? Is it really not the business of voters to be interested in the kind of people they elect to office?

And then he had the gall to say that "the refusal of the electorate to properly inform itself of the issues was the biggest culprit in this failure of the democratic system, and that we get what we usually pay for or vote for."

He continues by denying the media has anything to do with the situation as it merely reports the news. And beside, the people are more interested in "Entertainment talk shows that deal more with rantings and ratings than with rational and reasoned thought processes."

Imagine, it's the fault of the voters they get nothing but opportunists and thieves in government, simply because they don't pay as much attention to the issues as the representatives whom they trustingly send to the capitols of the country. Imagine, the adults of this country are more concerned with their entertainment than with healthcare, or social security, or whether or not their young sons and daughters are being sent to die in unnecessary wars. Can you truly believe this?

If true, however, isn't it possible the apathy of the electorate toward the issues stems from its deliberate exclusion from participation in decision-making by the Constitution for more than 200 years? Couldn't this long tradition of exclusion from public affairs explain the

electorate's notorious apathy for politics?

What would have been the situation if the people had had a voice in government during the last 200 years? What if, for the past 200 years American workers had had a say in taxing and spending decisions, and whether or not the lives of American boys and girls should be sacrificed in unnecessary wars? Do you think there would have been a Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan or an Iraq War?

I can tell you with the fullest of confidence, the U.S. wouldn't have participated in WWI, and 120,000 American boys would have lived, if the angry voters had had a say in the matter. But they didn't. The black powder and munitions manufacturers did.

What would have been the consequences if common Americans (everyone but the rich, the powerful, and the well-connected) had had the responsibility of political decision-making—or at least the power to inform their political "representatives" how to vote on the issues—during the last 200 years? Don't you think such a 200 year habit would have made voters today more informed than they are?

If the electorate had assisted in making political decisions, however, the people might have realized political decision-making isn't all that difficult—as long as the objectives of government remain the health of the nation and the overall citizenry, and not special interests.

But the prime reason the electorate has forever been excluded from political decision-making in the U.S. is that such a right would have threatened the wealth and wealth-making opportunities of the rich, for it would then have been difficult for private interests to steal from the public Treasury.

The bottom line is that if the American electorate had developed the habit of informing representatives how to vote, Americans today would understand that true democracy—direct democracy—is little more than a hop-skip-and-a jump beyond representative democracy, but such a system would offer them far more control over their lives, and prevent the rampant corruption in government that prevails today.

If you would like to get an idea of the benefits derived from a fairly structured Direct Democracy, read about fictional America.