Academics Against Mass Surveillance

I doubt it. Neither party really opposes surveillance, and if there was broad public opposition to surveillance, one or the other would.

I posit that you're not seeing a failure of representative democracy to properly express what is a position with majority support. Rather, you're failing to perceive the nature of the electorate.

I remember I stared college the year after 9/11 and was in school when the Iraq war started. Conservative place as far as colleges go, but left of center for the region as a whole. I heard a lot of talk about turning the middle east into a glass parking lot. That was not a position anyone was afraid to take publicly. Imagine my surprise when I'd come back to my very liberal circle in northern Virginia and hear about the "overwhelming public opposition to the Iraq war." Simply put, ideological minorities often don't realize that they are that.

none from India?

> What is it about the current democracy you live in that would need to change for it to become a "real" democracy?

Unfortunately, I don't know what to change, but let me tell you why I think the US isn't a real democracy (or any western democracy).

I remember watching the presidential debates. The question of the war(s) was discussed in very simple terms. Basically, both candidates agreed: "we have to catch the bad guys". They disagreed over minor things but that was the idea. Basically, the voters were addressed as they were 5-years old kids, and pretty much didn't have any choice.

This issue is extremely important, both ethically, economically, strategically and so on. Still, no meaningful information was given, or alternative choice or anything.

So you can tell me that the reason why both candidates agreed on this issue is that americans are pro-war, and that's rightly reflected with the two candidates left at that stage of the election. But I don't think americans are pro-war, and even if they are, I don't think there would be if they were correctly informed.

In any case, this decision is not a collective decision made by well-informed people. It's made at a higher level by people with their own agendas. What else is it if not a failure of democracy?

This is true for war, but it's pretty much the same thing with mass surveillance, wealth redistribution.

On the other hand, a friend in Oregon showed me his voting form, and their were several referendum about a variety of things. Then, there were references to what looked like objective websites that weigh the pros and cons about the question to vote for (for instance, a treaty with the indians). I find it ironic that so much detailed information and decision power was given to the voters concerning a treaty with the indian, when wars in iraq and afghanistan are summarized by "trust us, we have to catch the bad guys".

"2. If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening?"

No, probably not. But it doesn't mean that our democracies are working. The fact is that for some reasons it doesn't happen and we're left with decisions made that don't represent the public interest (or, at the very least, decisions that weren't collectively made).

Neither party is big on decriminalizing marijuana, but it has >50% support among Americans. Neither party is big on ending gerrymandering, but I'd guess it has >50% support (opposition?) from Americans.

There's stuff that gets votes, and there's stuff the majority supports. They aren't necessarily the same.

On the other hand, the Washington Post/Pew Research Center say there's narrow majority support some of the mass surveillance. Narrow majority opposition for some aspects: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-suppor...