Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

Originally posted by Ethericplane
Tired of the two party wrestling match?

Direct Democracy would empower the People to vote in new laws with a simple 2/3rds quorum. This quorum could be reached any day of the week if Internet Voting was continuous.

God only knows it would wake up the voters and get them involved like never before.

Anybody see an insurmountable problem with getting this?

Direct Democracy? Let’s see….

I vote that everyone who can/should/might be considered a liberal be locked in solitary confinement for a period of no less than 40 years effective immediately following the vote.

I will start the vote in Texas and work my way around the south until I get a quorum.

Sound fair? Lets do it!!

reply to post by seabag

I'm willing to bet that you would not be able to pull it off. To start with you would not be able to just toss the constitution aside. The Swiss model is a good example of democracy placed within a system that prevents mob rule.

reply to post by jcord


The people don't have to do it all, just step in when big money gets nutty.

reply to post by daskakik


I'm sure nobody wants mob rule or rule without law, or violence, or rule without public servants, but if the People do not assert themselves, and insert themselves powerfully into the decision process, big money is going to walk off with all of our money, every #ing penny of it! And you cannot deny they are more than half way there, already.

reply to post by seabag


All these paranoid fantasies.... where are these coming from? An earlier law the people could lay down is that no majority can ever attack any minority. That would be a good way to start Direct Democracy. And the people would go for this because once any majority starts attacking any minority, it would not be long before you would be attacked by yet another majority. Until there were 3 people left in the country. I don't see any majority of Americans minorities, personally. I don't see it.

It must be the most successful deceit in history to say direct democracy is mob rule

In my eyes the rule of the majority is always better than the rule of the few. Currently we have a rule of the few. I do not think the few know better than the majority, if i did think so i would vouch for monarchies and dictatorships.

That is why i vote for direct democracy, there is no higher authority than the support of the fellow human beings, everyone with the same weight in their opinion.

The global crisis we see today is directly resulting from the fact that a very very few have been in charge for very very long time, it is time it comes to an end.

reply to post by Ethericplane


I agree and the Swiss model is there and proven to work but you'd have to get Americans change and that is a tall order. There are a bunch who cling to the constitution and believe that if they could just shrink government back and follow it that all will be alright.

Great, but how are they going to do that if they don't really have a say in things past the appointing of a representative who will more than likely be bought off once he sets foot in DC?

ETA: Actually most are bought before they even win. That is what campaign contributions are about.

Giving up any control of my life to any individual or group is not acceptable.

Where did people come up with this? Did somebody wake up one morning and think "gee, I really wish my neighbors would run my life for me" or did a few people get together and say "gee, wouldnt it be swell if we could all gang up on somebody"?

Why is any of this necessary to begin with?

What am I getting out of it?

The common answer is "protection." Well, protection from what? Is it worth it? Like I have to side up really quick with a "good" pimp lest the "bad" pimp come slap me around?

Democracy is not an ideal form of government or a holy cow, its a relatively good form, but a mob rule at its core nonetheless. That said, democratic elements in governance are here to stay with us for a long time, it wont be so soon that we are all ruled by an artificial computer overmind. Thus it is indeed better if these democratic elements are more direct rather than representative, IMHO.

With computers and the internet, this is the first time in history that governing entire countries by direct democracy is practical. It would surely be an interesting experiment in governance, if nothing more.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Giving up any control of my life to any individual or group is not acceptable.

Where did people come up with this? Did somebody wake up one morning and think "gee, I really wish my neighbors would run my life for me"

How would it equate to giving up your life any more than in the current system?

Your neighbors would probably do a better job of looking out for you than somebody who's only cantact with you was shaking hands on the campain trail.

reply to post by daskakik


Exactly. If choosing between representative and direct democracy, I see no reason to choose representative one. And direct democracy state can also have a constitution, which would require more than simple majority of votes to change, for example 2/3 of votes.

My city actually voted in "direct democracy" back in the Progressive era. Too bad nobody remembers or uses it though.

I've toyed with the idea of trying to educate enough folks for us to actually practice it, but on the other hand I like to keep a low profile, so it's probably never going to happen.

I think we might be the only city in the USofA that actually "has" it.

Anybody know which city?

reply to post by Maslo


That is what the Swiss have. Posted a link above. There have a constitution and representatives but they also have veto power of laws so if congress tries pasing some bogus piece of legislation the citizens can contest it and if they get 2/3 of the votes against it then it is stricken. And they also have the power to push for changes in the constitution but they need a larger number of citizens to petition and it still has to get 2/3 of the votes.

In the US that would mean 200 million would have to vote for something to get it passed. Sounds better than having a super congress of 12 deciding for 300 million.

It's a nice idea, but when we have media organisations that can sway public opinion in the manner in which they do, then we wouldn't really get a true reflection of democracy, just the democracy that suits the corporate media best. A little like how it is now.

Originally posted by daskakik

How would it equate to giving up your life any more than in the current system?

Exactly my point. Either way is unacceptable. Nice pimp or mean pimp I'm still being pimped out.

Your neighbors would probably do a better job of looking out for you than somebody who's only cantact with you was shaking hands on the campain trail.

Lesser evil is still evil. Why must I live under an evil pimp at all?

My question remains. Why are we subjecting ourselves to any of this crap in the first place?

reply to post by woodwardjnr


True but could it be any worse than the media control in the current system? I mean getting information out there is alot easier today than ever.

Right here on ATS we have people uncover laws that people might be against and bring it to the attention of alot of people.

Yea directly letting the ignorant masses have a direct voice would just work out great. Most of the US populace is pretty ill-informed about things in the first place. Than add in that not everybody participates in voting in the first place. I don't mean the folks who feel their vote doesn't matter, I mean those who are just apathetic. Add in the fact not everybody owns or has access to a computer for voting. Can't discriminate who votes over something like that now can we? Plus how much BS would we go through after the first vote that passes and the losing voting bloc starts protesting since they did not get their way? Currently we have a focus for our gripes with our elected officials. Take that away and how will the "losers" in a particular vote be able to address their complaint. Remember you can't please all of the people!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


We are not subjecting ourselves we are subjugated.

It's called reality. Living under pimp rule is the reality. If you did away with all government then you could still be subjugated by local pimp. Government is not needed for one man to enslave another.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Ethericplane
Tired of the two party wrestling match?

Direct Democracy would empower the People to vote in new laws with a simple 2/3rds quorum. This quorum could be reached any day of the week if Internet Voting was continuous.

God only knows it would wake up the voters and get them involved like never before.

Anybody see an insurmountable problem with getting this?

Direct Democracy? Let’s see….

I vote that everyone who can/should/might be considered a liberal be locked in solitary confinement for a period of no less than 40 years effective immediately following the vote.

I will start the vote in Texas and work my way around the south until I get a quorum.

Sound fair? Lets do it!!

edit on 22-11-2011 by seabag because: (no reason given)

And according to the rules of direct democracy, if 51% vote with you, it's a law and therefor legal and binding. Of course, the proponents of direct democracy will then peacefully accede to the will of the majority.

Gary Strand described it best: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

/TOA

reply to post by hangedman13

You point out a bunch of technical hurdles that can be overcome with a little work.

A focus for our gripes in our elected officials, please when has that ever worked.

How much BS would we go through when the losers start protesting? None. the losers in a particular vote will be able to petition and have it go to vote again if they feel strong enough about something. No need for protests though they may be very vocal to get their message out.