Imagine a judicial system in which opposing litigants are required to chose one lawyer between them to represent both sides in the case? Could that be called justice? If not, then winner-take-all elections cannot be called "representative".
Most politcal "discussions", in my experience, begin with a shot across the bow and end with an awkward silence or an insincere attempt to "agree". And the topics of most "discussions" orbit around frustration at the inability to influence public affairs and attitudes. The "change" everyone is clamoring for is always meant to happen in others.
In direct democracy there is a striking difference. Not only does everyone get their turn to speak, everyone not speaking makes an active effort to listen. But ever since the invention of the secret ballot it seems we have taken that secrecy, not as a right, but as a duty not to discuss our real opinions, and a fear that revealing them will lead to intimidation or rancor.

I'd like to know whether we're assuming both democracy and some limitation of it via respect for some set of individual and equal rights. For example, in the absence io the right to vote and to obtain redress through the courts, blacks in the Jim Crow South were oppressed by majority rule, and the feedback loop which is one of the better features of democracy was broken because white legislators and jurists made laws they knew would never apply to them.
关于最后一点，我想听听关于罗尔斯的“无知之幕”的讨论，每当我听到有人提议对他认为自己永远不会加入的群体采取严厉行动时，我就会想到这一点。杜威会怎么看待这个概念;像这样的公平机制是否可行?还有其他值得考虑的吗?

*(it's almost always an 'he')

你怎么能讨论民主的优点而不质疑我们的智商呢?
Of course, though, I mean literally doing so, not the insult meant by the figurative use of the phrase.

其他人有不同的观点，但我对《a Theory》的看法是，罗尔斯试图表明社会正义是形式上的理性。他很愚蠢地卷入了一场与他的敌人关于这个想法的实用性的辩论。但它的实用性，尽管不同于它的合理性，却得到了许多国家的经验的最终支持，这些国家在某种程度上尝试了它。其余的只是对全球变暖否定者的事实，或含铅汽油或香烟焦油的有毒影响的歪曲和敌意的无视。这种对社会正义合理性的错误描述忽略了一点，即无论是作为理性原则的支持者，还是作为实际事实的否定者，都没有作出任何努力来描述正义到底是什么。正义根本不是财富，因为占有的权利，通常被称为“自由”，实际上只是剥夺他人对自己的财产享有自由的权力。用剥夺来定义自由是不连贯的。从需要公共机构支持的角度来界定私人权利也不连贯。自由不是这个意义上的自由。这是一个更基本的原则，因为与他人讲道理从根本上是不可能的，除非其最亲密的动机是需要别人自由地承认它的合理性。 It is one of those perpetual fallacies that so many suppose reason and truth is something we must see and believe. It is nothing of the sort. But it is established in unbiased economics that limiting wealth to a level that supports the highest possible wages and best possible material well-being for the poorest maximizes the health of the economy as a whole. The thrift the rich command in the poor should just as readily apply to them. That is, efficiency demands we get only the least wealth required for the maintenance of a well-run economy, and anything more is waste and corruption of the very motivation of our economic system. That is, it is fair to say, as Rawls does, that justice is fairness.
There can be no more cogent issue in philosophy than that of our capacity to reason with each other. The ability to speak is greater evidence of intelligence than all our scholarship or scholarly testing of it. It is therefore not at all impertinent to make the issue of intelligence, and what it is, a central theme of our discussions of democracy.
For the third time this week I have heard former moderators of presidential debates claim it is not for the moderator to correct the candidates on factual errors, but this folly collapses the event to a brawl relative to the views of the participants. It literally denies there is any objective truth at all. The candidates should be freed from questions of objective fact so they can concentrate on policy. Otherwise the liar has the advantage, by ensnaring his opponent in unraveling facts, he can center the whole event on his own views. The moderator is the shill.

If anyone had told me thirty years ago that Donald Trump (or someone like him) could actually be a serious contender for the presidency of these United States, I would have labeled that person crazy. Or foolish. Or both. I have followed Mr. Trump's antics for many years and am continually amazed by his ability to sell himself, while indulging in all sorts of egomanic buffoonery. Most folks within my small circle of associates (ages 35 to 70+) are in like manner unimpressed with The Donald. And yet, there he is. And while Hillary Clinton seems to be weathering his storm well enough, her own problems notwithstanding, the third party candidate appears to have done little or nothing to educate himself and at least LOOK like he might be worth someone's vote. We do get pretty much what we deserve in the areas of life where we have clear choices. The problem with this election cycle is that there is no clear choice. What would Mr. Dewey think about election 2016? Well, what did we think about people like P.T. Barnum? Billy Graham? Charles Manson? It's The Greatest Show on Earth, with the best yet to come. Bring it on!
Neuman.

I didn't believe anyone could vote for Nixon, or Reagan, or either Bush. Defying reason seems an easy trick in this electorate. Presto! A sow's ear becomes a silk purse. Reading the public at face-value is a futile gesture. And instrumental reason applied to public affairs is toxic to the public good. More to the point, if we can't win the little battles we have little chance in the big one. All the hoopla is about a tiny fraction of little more than half the eligible voters. What gets them enthusiastic is not likely to be well-reasoned. That word, by the way, featured powerfully in the debates among the "Founders", as a kind of public madness toxic to democracy. It can only be answered by close reasoning with each individual, a perspective we've lost to mass media and to the myriad individual but impersonal exchanges that occur on the internet.

Government?
人类需要被治理吗?
?Do you?
If you were not governed would you go crazy?
Would you have no self-control?
当我们把控制权交给别人时，我们不是放弃了自己的自制力吗?
Is that the problem?
Is that our weakness, we've given our power to others?
Why in this age of instant information and communication do we need representation?
Why do we need legislators or rule-makers?
How many rules are there, can they even be counted, and what do they all mean?
What was the Declaration of Independence all about?
自由不是吗?政府自由、独立、自治?
为什么独立又被政府取代了?
Does Democracy truly represent you and me?
Are our taxes being spent wisely?
Do you think bombing people to death is morally correct?
Don't you love a Socratic Dialog?
Has government reformed our healthcare?
And what about the dollar, the Fed?
Is higher education affordable?
Should I leave education for another post?
Do questions lead to answers?
What about truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
So help me God?
In God we trust?
In myself I trust,
=

Do you have a 'post'? Were you posted there? Do you know the difference between active and passive voice? Or the difference between what is and what is made it so (cause and effect)? Can you do philosophy without the difference?
我们需要政府来防止大多数人自发的合法行为被用作对付他们的武器。那些这样做的人声称需要法律来使人们合法。这种说法是无法无天的开始。我们称之为“共和国”。任何政府都在两种责任之间左右为难:一是承认并尊重普通民众的内在合法性，二是尊重那些利用这种合法性谋取私利和权力的人的内在无法无天。但只有民主才有真正的机会接近法律的精神。但是如果你不和自己意见不同，你就永远不是你所认为的那个人，或者你所认为的那个人。时间是排除在我们所有的推理系统之外的中间项。它的不同之处就是它的证据。这并不是说，时间的不同是理性上无法解释的，而是说，这种无法解释的不同是理性的最终的、最严格的条件，是理性一切过渡条件的动力。 If you do not differ with yourself you cannot be the one you think you are nor as one as you think.

Well God save the queen! =

The qauntifier again! Always the damn quantifier! That's what the queen is. The thesis of the monad, the one. The qualifier is what person is, and even what time is, that the quantifier, the one, is excluded from our reasoning. The queen, whichever queen you mean (I have no queen), is no more the one we are than you are as one as you repeatedly proclaim. Also, when I refer to the mythic deity I use the lower case, and I suspect those who capitolize it of being true believers, or at least of undue respect for the tradition of faith.

无差异的哲学是一。而最终的民主是自我控制。信心是为那些缺乏确定性的人准备的，“一”是唯一的绝对。Be One, =

Self-control? By what standard? If its own, is this control at all? if not its own, how is it one?

标准是平等，马丁·路德·金的应许之地，人类为之战斗和牺牲。平等是自由、独立、民主的定义。哲学的真理。Einstien统一方程。笛卡尔的我，林肯的内战，甘地的使命，正义。黑等于白，阴等于阳，一就是一。
11号怎么样?人类的缺陷是尺度。自然确实是不可估量的，科学已经证明了这一点。如今，科学生活在一个充满不确定性的世界，即量子力学，它在寻找解决方案或确定性。解决方案是隧道尽头的光，绝对的。它可以通过测量本身来把握。你测量过光速吗?当你完成的时候告诉我，我在这里等你。耐心是自制力。平等终于自由了。 =

I've got a lot of great company throughout history all marching for the same thing, and I am proud to be with them.

At every fork in the road imagine you've taken both and call it all one! It's unlikely you know where you are at all!