thanks John, i see and appreciate what your saying. i still wouldn't put away entirely the thought of smaller localities holding more power over themselves through themselves, instead of what we currently know now.
Just to be clear I was meaning large diverse populations. I've got no issue with power being devolved to the lowest level that can meaningfully exercise it while also maintaining the coherency of the sovereign body.
If that sounds a bit gibberish I really mean that local decisions should be taken at a local level and I'm not necessarily averse to direct democracy when smaller populations are concerned about specific issues. The concerns of the larger state are too much (and too complex) to be decided by regular plebiscite though in my opinion.
i saw in another post of yours where you made a very good point about how the reality of the situation(s) pretty much begs for the form of goverment we have now. (i'm sort of paraphrasing you, i hope i haven't misunderstood you, if i have, i'll try to fix that). anyhow... that does make sense in a way, however, that is because, in my opinion, however modern we seem, we are still living in the 'dark ages' so to speak. not in all ways of course, but in many.
I'm not sure what post that was (shhh..it's Friday night and I've had more than a few drinks so I can't remember
) but I believe there has to be a sense of pragmatism in our form of government and the argument that "it works" is actually quite a valid one. I'll make a confession that I'm an unabashed republican but I find it hard to argue against the (British) monarchy on the basis of the harm they've done to democracy in the UK because for all it's faults our form of democracy tends to work or at least the problems we have can be levelled somewhere else than Buckingham Place.