It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Direct Democracy- Please discuss technical difficulties

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Wikipedia

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy)[1] is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly.



So this has been bothering me for basically my whole life.

We have, in front of us, a way where each individual (as stupid as they may be) to vote on an issue they care about. And yet, we continue to elect people to go and do it for us- even though those people consistently turn around and do whatever they want once elected. It seems most of the time, the general public is not even made aware of what's being voted on by our officials.

Now there are a lot of hurdles involved here, and I'd like a nice civil discussion about ways it can go wrong- and ways it could go nicely. What I would like to determine is if this would be better than our existing system or not.
IMO, having a monkey play whack-a-mole with what passes and what doesnt would probably be better- but I digress.




Let me get the ball rolling.


First.
Yes, there are the super scary "hackers"- yes, an internet based voting system could theoretically be tampered with by black-hat internet thugs.
On the flip side, these days, US Citizens handle everything from credit cards to mortgages to stocks and bonds on the internet- and there are plenty of security methods that exist (getting better all the time) to make sure things don't go awry. Also, please note that the existing system is also being thoroughly corrupted anyway- not only by money buying politicians, but also just straight up voting fraud.

Second.
Yes- this would effectively require us to find a way to directly link votes to citizens. Yes, this violates pretty much every rule in the book on voter ID laws. Yes, this creates the problem of a central database of who votes for what, making lots of potential issues with over-powerful governments.
On the flip side.... well. This is where I get stuck. I personally don't want the government knowing exactly what I as an individual vote for- but I don't see any other way for my vote to actually count.

Third.
This basically makes voter apathy the biggest hurdle in getting things done. Only the people who feel strongly about something would bother to vote on a particular issue- this leads to all sorts of strange, super specific rules and regulations.
On the flip side, right now its not much different- only votes are effectively purchased by corporations who stand to make the most money off of a ruling going one way or another. Apathetic voters, or greedy corporations? Neither choice is great.




posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

I've always thought it would be a step up. Representative democracy like we have now is sort of like a "choose your own dictator" type of system.

Look at the Swiss. They're proving that a more direct democracy can function just fine.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomacI found this online. Maybe it will help answer your question. "Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones".



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

I too have been thinking on this,I came up with people voting by their social security number.By the time your 18 we have one anyway,if your parents ever filed taxes they had to get one. That means that they would have to have people first go in and 'clean up social securitys site. Tagging all dead people's numbers so that they couldn't be used etc. Then people would just have to get on by having a computer or going to a library or whatever,sign in and vote. Te electoral college would have to go as well. We wouldn't need them any longer and it would be by popular vote for the president allowing for 3rd party candidates to finally get in.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I had the thought of internet based voting backed by mail in paper ballots

as far as third party i think the system was designed to have one as president. someone not right or left but in the real middle
edit on 20-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

"Democracy is a Pathetic Belief in the Collective Wisdom of Individual Ignorance." --H. L. Mencken



edit on 20-11-2014 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, in a republic, the sheep has a gun. --Ben Franklin


That pretty much sums up my feelings about democracy. Mob-rule, or the tyranny of the majority, is just as despotic as the one ruling the many.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
As has been pointed out, a direct democracy provides the ultimate power of discrimination against any minority. It removes any concept of equality.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Estonia practises what is called E-democracy




E-democracy (a combination of the words electronic and democracy) incorporates 21st-century information and communications technology to promote democracy. That means a form of government in which all adult citizens are presumed to be eligible to participate equally in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.[1] E-democracy encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.


It works and it is by far one of the most truly democratic systems I am aware off. It essentially forces governments to radicaly alter how they govern their people, for the better. Which is why it is none to popular I suppose.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Yes the division of the Senate and the House is fundamentally a divisional balance. House being district representation the Senate closer to the majority concept in state but still divided by state as an additional balance.

The idea is then that an issues has to be then heard by all and hashed out, filtered and validated......that is unless one party controls everything....and then they just vote and read it later.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The general public is too damn stupid to get to vote.

A republic of Laws with a Bill of Rights that can only be changed by a super majority is a better choice.

Elected Representatives are able to sit and discuss (and be bought) more easily.

A strict Democracy would be a disaster.

Voting in a Republic should be limited to Taxpaying adults, property owners, and heads of households.
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Tusks


Voting in a Republic should be limited to Taxpaying adults, property owners, and heads of households.


That would be best.

Also, I would add that, for a decision to be reached, a vote has to be unanimous.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
how about a test to gain voting status.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Democracy is one of the worst forms of government ever imagined by the human mind. People are not drones, living in a Borg collective. They are individuals living collectively for the survival and advancement of the human species. Our constitutional republic has some major problems, but jumping from the frying pan into the fire is not the answer to those problems.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac
Wikipedia

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy)[1] is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly.



So this has been bothering me for basically my whole life.

We have, in front of us, a way where each individual (as stupid as they may be) to vote on an issue they care about. And yet, we continue to elect people to go and do it for us- even though those people consistently turn around and do whatever they want once elected. It seems most of the time, the general public is not even made aware of what's being voted on by our officials.

Now there are a lot of hurdles involved here, and I'd like a nice civil discussion about ways it can go wrong- and ways it could go nicely. What I would like to determine is if this would be better than our existing system or not.
IMO, having a monkey play whack-a-mole with what passes and what doesnt would probably be better- but I digress.




Let me get the ball rolling.


First.
Yes, there are the super scary "hackers"- yes, an internet based voting system could theoretically be tampered with by black-hat internet thugs.
On the flip side, these days, US Citizens handle everything from credit cards to mortgages to stocks and bonds on the internet- and there are plenty of security methods that exist (getting better all the time) to make sure things don't go awry. Also, please note that the existing system is also being thoroughly corrupted anyway- not only by money buying politicians, but also just straight up voting fraud.

Second.
Yes- this would effectively require us to find a way to directly link votes to citizens. Yes, this violates pretty much every rule in the book on voter ID laws. Yes, this creates the problem of a central database of who votes for what, making lots of potential issues with over-powerful governments.
On the flip side.... well. This is where I get stuck. I personally don't want the government knowing exactly what I as an individual vote for- but I don't see any other way for my vote to actually count.

Third.
This basically makes voter apathy the biggest hurdle in getting things done. Only the people who feel strongly about something would bother to vote on a particular issue- this leads to all sorts of strange, super specific rules and regulations.
On the flip side, right now its not much different- only votes are effectively purchased by corporations who stand to make the most money off of a ruling going one way or another. Apathetic voters, or greedy corporations? Neither choice is great.



More doable with modern technology.

I still don't want a "pure democracy" because I do not want the rights of minority or of the individual to be trampled by the will of the masses.

Our Constitutional Representative Republic would work just fine if votes paid some damned attention.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

The problem with direct democracy is that it is rule by majority and gives no say to the minority.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Direct democracy could work...
The only problem is, we'd need to spend a lot of time, reading all the statistics, discussing what they mean, explain it to those which lack reading comprehension skills, and live in a world where the collective interest is considered more important than the question: is my grass greener than my neighbours?



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

re·pub·lic
rəˈpəblik/
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.


Republic vs. democracy

ETA: Elected Representatives are supposed to be bound by Constitutional Law. Thats how we are supposed to know what they are up to. If they go outside the constitution or by omission of action allow others to go outside the Constitution, like banks or corporations, then they get fired or arrested.


edit on 20-11-2014 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DimithaeDead people SSN being used should be eliminated, today. But I believe there is a problem there. There is no law that I know of that tells funeral homes to report dead people to the Social Security. That is left up to family members. If funeral homes where required to report dead people to the Social Security. Then the Social Security Department is failing to remove those people from the list of living people.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think even the majority have a say right now,much less the minority.The only ones having a say at all is our ultra rich. We see how well thats worked.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join