[zdragnar]

If "the system" you're referring to is the USA, then no, it's not designed for that.

We elect people based on ideology and character. They may have a few central policy platforms, but there are so many laws and resolutions passed that they cannot pre-advertise their positions or poll their constituents for every one.

Hence, why we are a republic (or representative democracy, if you will). We elect people on the basis of trusting they will do the right thing, because noone has the time to track municipality, state and federal votes.

Among the many experiments on local organization early communist China had was essentially a pure democracy (for local matters), and the inevitable result was there were so many votes that people were overwhelmed and disengaged.

[Caveman_Coder]

> "We elect people on the basis of trusting they will do the right thing"

That's not currently working too well for us...

[zdragnar]

We are a very diverse group. I detest living in big cities, and recently bought 2.5 acres out in the country. Couldn't be happier. Many of the laws and regulations in the big cities wouldn't make any sense to apply out here.

Likewise, purely popular votes on every issue would ultimately mean that the very tiny majority wins, every time, until the squishy "middle" voters get sick of it and switch sides again.

The net result is the same. One side feels left out at any given point, and the direction of the country zigs and zags.

The modern attitude of extreme hyperbolic reaction to every little detail could have many causes; my money is on social media (where speaking often is more rewarding than listening thoughtfully). It also doesn't help that our news sources are in such fiscal dire straits they seem to think the only newsworthy items are those that stoke rage or FUD.

Things are going reasonably well, all things considered. Lots of things could be going a lot better, of course, but I suspect that's always been true, and will continue to be true.