"citizens" is a term vague to the point of meaninglessness. Not sure what you're definition you're using, but pretty much all authoritarian communist governments in the 20th and 21st century had citizens in charge of the government. That didn't do a whole lot of good for the citizens that were not in charge. The DPRK is pretty much the only one where the responsibility of who was in charge was passed on from parent to child.
I mean all citizen, not some special citizens or a few citizens. Of course if the power is in the hands of the few it doesn't matter at all which label you put on them.
Basically every form of government that has ever existed at scale has devolved into an oligarchy. I know of none where "all citizen [sic], not some special citizens or a few citizens" are in power. A Sanders or Warren government would just have power in the hands of either Sanders or Warren and their respective cabinet and the other three branches of government. It would still be "some special citizens or a few citizens". I haven't seen a single proposal from them that would have then operating any differently from any previous executive administration this country has seen since 1776.
> A Sanders or Warren government would just have power in the hands of either Sanders or Warren and their respective cabinet and the other three branches of government. It would still be "some special citizens or a few citizens"
I'm not proposing an alternative. I'm happy with our Constitution and our three branches of government with checks and balances enforced. We have the 1st and 2nd amendment as a Plan A and the Plan B, respectively, to prevent tyranny.
No it would not, both Warren and Sanders are strong supporters of transparency and voting rights and want to reign in lobbying and power of big corporations.
