Please prove me wrong

A true democracy (like you suggest) is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner.

Give me a good reason the system that is in place is working and that is proof to the contrary of your idea.

The existence of an electoral college is due to, in the late 1700s, they could not have conceived something like the internet. The reason we have representatives is because mass communication did not exist when the laws were made. Now, more people vote for American Idol than for president. It is very possible to achieve the goal of a non-representative democracy.

Since America has the right to vote for representatives who decide on this matter, why couldn't, if technology allowed, the same American people decide on all matters those elected would?

Hacking? The system could be corrupted by hackers who want votes to sway their way. Is this not any different than the corruption we have now? This is just an excuse by statists who like the way things are run (into the ground) now.

In the 21st century, this type of governance is a no-brainer. Too bad it gives regular people too much power and the elites will never go for it.

It's good to see fellow ATSer's poking around at this idea, and it is startling to see others dismiss it. I hope the kool-aid was good, because it is going to kill you.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
In the 21st century, this type of governance is a no-brainer. Too bad it gives regular people too much power and the elites will never go for it.

It's good to see fellow ATSer's poking around at this idea, and it is startling to see others dismiss it. I hope the kool-aid was good, because it is going to kill you.

I agree that this type of governance has its benifits, however as I have already stated, the "majority" will need to have oversight over their new found powers... A job that our current judiciary branch seems to be unable to do.

Giving "power to the people" is fine but the majority CANNOT be allowed to trample the minorities rights... As I stated before this is not a Democracy it is a Constitutional Republic. The "Constitutional" part must stay intact, even when the majority votes against it...

There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed before this could take place... such as:

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
5) We have a relatively small amount of decision makers at the moment, which makes tracking bribers or underhanded dealing easier. If everyone becomes the decision maker, there is no way to track and punish all of the "cash for votes" and corruption that would emerge, you couldn't even try to fight it.

He makes a good point, corruption would run rampant... IMHO

[edit on 27-7-2008 by XTexan]

Originally posted by jamie83
reply to post by foremanator

 

It an idiotic idea on many, many, levels.

First, not everybody has the internet.

Second, 99% of people have no background, education, or specialized knowledge to make complex decisions on a variety of issues.

As a side note, the banks are in trouble because the people who borrowed money did not repay the banks -the banks didn't steal from them.

as i do tend to agree with you the 1% voted in to make those complex decisions also seem to show they dont really have much of an idea either

OP,

Your idea is called Switzerland.

And obviously, it does work.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by The_Modulus]

Such a system will just allow the majority to rule over the minority even more.

What is needed is not a change in government but rather a change in the people. We get the politicians we deserve because nobody will hold their feet to the fire. And now we should allow these same people who won't even take the time to do that to be able to vote outright on actual issues?

What is needed are individual rights where the individual is able to choose on these issues for themselves as intended. Then everyone gets to choose what they want.

I have to say that I think there are some fundamental problems with this idea but it is not without merit. Perhaps increased access to our representatives via the internet might be a good a application of this general idea. this would force accountability. The real issue is that government is far too large and far to complicated as it currently exists. Posters are sighting the complexity of our system are a reason to limit our individual say, balderdash. This idea is contradictory to the base principles that our nation was founded upon
.
I do not object to the notion that the average American is not aware enough to handle the task of everyday governance. This is not, however, an excuse to continue with business as usual----It is the reason we have the problem. RESPONSIBILITY means everyone.

If they are not equipped to handle the tasks required of liberty, educate them. Otherwise, we are doomed to fail.

Originally posted by foremanator
Hi there
I am posting this because I wanted to know if there is something wrong with this idea. I have had this discusion with friends and family and nobody seems to agree with me.
My idea is this.
Almost everyone in north America has either internet or acess to the internet. Why wouldnt we be able to (as a whole) take over the job's that politicians do. What I mean is when it comes to voting on policy and law. Why not let the majority decide on these issues.
For example who agrees that these massive banks that are going bankrupt should recieve massive bailout packages from the taxpayers they stole from in the first place.
Its just a thought. But I wanted to put it out there and get some feedback

"Democray is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." -- Benjamin Franklin

Because we live in and are guaranteed a republican form of government. Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution.

heh... ppl are divided and division is increasing every day. majority cant stand as one so this idea is not possible... sadly...

Giving "power to the people" is fine but the majority CANNOT be allowed to trample the minorities rights... As I stated before this is not a Democracy it is a Constitutional Republic. The "Constitutional" part must stay intact, even when the majority votes against it...

I never intended to convey the idea that we were going to get rid of the constitution, just give most of the legislative responsibility to the people and not the system. We are a constitutional republic. I do not dispute this.

I think the idea has considerable merit. It wouldn't be easy to do, but it has possibilities.

We could have public oversight for many things, not just approval of laws, but actions on the part of the executive branch, demanding that incompetents get fired for not doing their jobs, forcing action to be taken or not taken. How about review of judges and the policies of the courts and the police. There are a lot of judges who have far more power than they should have, who abuse the system regularly. At least start opening up access to information.

Having been through a child custody dispute, it was obvious that the whole system is based around secrecy, with people making decisions without bothering to look at the laws, because they could hide behind the system. If you have a lawyer, the judge automatically sends him the reasons for the decisions he made, but if you don't have a lawyer, you must ask for these things, and that is not something they will tell you. Getting information out of these people is like getting blood from a turnip.

Just think how much pork barrel spending the public would eliminate if they had the opportunity. How many federal contractors would be canned for overcharging, and failing to complete projects on time if the public were given the ability to review their actions. I think you would find that the public wouldn't be approving $1,300 toilet seats. The public would demand that CEO's of banks that are bailed out have to give back all the money they were given as bonuses. Action would have already been taken to shut down illegal immigration and the war on drugs would be over. School administrators would be making a whole heck of a lot less money, and home construction inspectors would be toning down their over abuse of their powers.

It seems that the internet could be used a great deal more to give the public far more oversight of government.

Let the revolution begin.

Just think if public oversight had the ability to demand justice for the gaming of California's electricity system back in 2001, and demand that the corporate executives that pulled that con be brought to justice. Those scum bags would still be in jail, and the money would have been returned to the people robbed by that whole con game. I think the rich and powerful would be a whole lot less rich and powerful, and that would be a very good thing.

By the way, starred and flagged. If you are sick of government incompetence, and want to push for change, this is a great way to start. Using the internet to promote greater participation in government is a great idea. The public should have more oversight of people in position of power within our government.

Not only is your idea doable, it's actually incredibly simple to make happen

All it takes is for politicians to engage the online community. MSM is a joke now days. I speculate that by 2012 most of the politicians elected will be engaged with the online discourse.

We don't have to make a new political party or change any laws. An Internet government can function seamlessly on top of what we already have. All it takes is to elect politicians willing to engage the online community.

This is happening already at www.campaignforliberty.com.... The official site will launch on September 2nd. We'll be taking over the Republican Party.

Once people and politicians embrace the web, political success will not be dependent on vast sums of money or how much airtime news networks a lot. It will be dependent on how compelling their platform is, on how compelling the supporters are.

Anyone who thinks that the Internet won't radically change the world is mistaken.

Ok
I have gone over everyone's opinions. And here is what I have noticed.

The number 1 biggest concern is security.
The number 2 biggest concern is. The fact that the majority would oppress the minority.
The number 3 biggest concern is. "People are to stupid" to govern themselves.

#1 the best argument I can give is that. In our society almost everything is transitioned through some sort of networking. No matter what it may be. Of course there are security risks just as in all things. But having the ability to "see" your own vote counted on a ballot is more of a conformation than you get now

#2 A constitution guaranteeing people right's would be an effective counter against this happening ( we could even just reinstate the old one we used to have)

#3 "People are stupid" I believe that people who are uninformed on any particular issue just wouldn't bother to vote. I believe people are far more involved in the things that they know a lot about.
I for one do not believe "people are stupid" I actually think they are incredibly intelligent. They have a remarkable ability to digest and contemplate any information given to them. Again I would say that "where" they get their information is critical. You can only form an opinion based on the information you have. If I controlled all the information you receive. I can control your opinion

Originally posted by The_Modulus
Your idea is called Switzerland.

Not really.

The Swiss have three branch government featuring a two-house, law-making, representative legislature very similar to the U.S.

What the Swiss have is the power to challenge a federal law by referendum. If there is enough support for the referendum a national vote is taken. A simple majority passes the referendum.

Swiss citizens can also submit federal constitutional initiatives to amend the constitution. Again, if there's enough support a national vote is taken. A double-majority is needed for passage in this case.

In the U.S., the initiative and referendum process is available at the state and local level, depending on where you live, but this kind of direct democracy is not available at the federal level.

reply to post by foremanator


Your argument is deeply flawed.

The poor are not well represented under the current system, as you say, however that does not provide any support for your proposal of a system that would do an even poorer job of representing them.


Another point has come to mind for me. Not even an organization as comparatively small as congress can manage its schedule in a completely democratic fashion. They need the Rules Committee and the Ways and Means Committee to keep things moving smoothly. Those committees are of course very powerful positions for sabotaging or shepherding legislation, even when the people contending against that power are career politicians. Imagine how powerful they would be against the average citizens.

We are not merely looking at the poor not being able to make every vote, but at an elite few being able to exclude the poor and many other demographics. And those people would be INVISIBLE in the system you propose, mark my words. The sheer volume would ensure it. There would be so many proposed revisions to bills that you never even knew you didn't get to see, because some aparatchik topped other votes on the website, etc.

Unlike in the current system, you wouldn't know who was screwing you. If push comes to shove we can always form a good old fashioned lynch mob, place congress under citizens arrest, and conduct the trial and execution right out on the Mall. Even that admittedly unlikely recourse is gone from us in the proposed system of direct democracy.


And that's before we even get into the obvious problems with budget. Democracy is done for when the poor realize that they can vote themselves money. Frankly, a republic is necessary to protect democracy from such problems.


Now, as I discussed back when I was a candidate in the Above Politics election, I do believe that there should be a federal ballot initiative process, including one for impeachment and constitutional ammendment. It would certainly do us some good to be able to make an end run around the politicians on matters of importance. It would however be a bad idea to place the whole dang system in the hands of an unreliable, underinformed public that is not at all prepared to contend with the political machinations of the elite.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by foremanator

 

Your argument is deeply flawed.

The poor are not well represented under the current system, as you say, however that does not provide any support for your proposal of a system that would do an even poorer job of representing them.

I was being sarcastic. Of course the poor are not being represented. Is the point I was making

You've missed the point. I know you're saying they aren't currently represented. The point is things only get worse under the system you propose.

reply to post by IAttackPeople


"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

With what is proposed by the OP, we would have anarchy. We would be voting on every thing,every day.

Roper