I just read that, in Virginia under the Articles of Confederation, to vote required one to own at least 25 acres with a house or 50 acres without. I would say that one should be required to own enough land to use it for a productive purpose other than simply residing. So owning a row house or a townhouse or most single family homes would not qualify. Were I king, I'd say that one must own at least 1 acre with a house or 5 acres without a house in order to be allowed to vote. With today's advances in agriculture and technology, land can be more productive than in the late 18th Century. Those who move to cities do so for jobs that earn them more money and/or prestige. If that's what floats one's boat, then they either need to suck it up or buy a 5-acre plot somewhere if s/he wants to vote.

No, only the titled property owner would be allowed to vote. The key for me is that the voter stand to lose property or his/her freedom to use his/her property as he/she wishes. If I don't own property, I at least know that those who do will vote to protect mine as well.

Then buy 5 acres or a house with at least one acre. Oh, and the vote would be for the district in which the property is owned. Again, this is under the system I would establish if I were king.

I'm guessing your response might be something like: "But poor people or people of less means would be disenfranchised by being unable to vote." Exactly as they should be. Those are the very people who don't understand the greater good and vote for people in power to take from others to give to them.

So why all the emphasis on getting all Americans -- or as many Americans as possible -- to vote? In what way do you think that would change anything?

Direct democracy would work only if there were sufficient numbers of people awake enough to understand that a vote for either of the two factions of The Party is wasted and would have to all vote for the same candidate -- not some for the Libertarian, some for the Green, some for the Constitution, and some for the Reform candidates. Do you think we have that kind of majority among those who vote or would vote? I look at how Ron Paul has fared in the primaries and the media blitz either ignoring or attacking him and I say we're not even close. Hell, I'll bet that most of the OWS folks will be voting for Obama this year.

Coming full circle, how do you think direct democracy would undermine groups like Bilderberg?