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.

 

Switching up How the Executive Offices are Filled

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Distributed Democracy.

Everyone votes on issues discussed, everyone gets to put in their two pence or cents, and no small group of entitled, pointless, econopuppets between the people and the decision making.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Yep! A referendum is what it's known as here.

An issue is brought up and presented to the POPULACE - and the state (it's always either a state or local county/city suggestion) or applicable legislature has to go with whatever the people decide for that location.

Problem is, it seems to only work on the state/local level. It's not allowed at the federal level (introduce: Electoral College).
Which is why I wouldn't oppose having the US broken up into sovereign countries like the EU is.


edit on 8/30/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I can appreciate out of the box thinking but I don't think this would work. Bernie is too valuable to put in the VP slot (virtually useless unless the President dies). If he doesn't win the nomination he needs to be back in the Senate and I don't think Trump's ego would allow him to be the VP. Bernie said before he announced that he would not run as an Independent, barring his base convincing him otherwise in the event of more DNC shenanigans, I don't see that changing, he does not back out of his word easily (in fact I don't think ever). Trump also recently stated that he would not run third party if he doesn't win the nomination.

An independent alliance between others is a great idea though, just not with these two.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


An independent alliance between others is a great idea though, just not with these two.

Exactly. It's too late for that.

Thanks for your participation.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I am going with Team B&B (Buzzy and Beezer).

Your campaign slogan can be, 'If You Must Waste Your Vote on Someone, Waste it on Us'.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
A better way would be to get rid of the electoral college & make the presidential election strictly a popular vote. Then it wouldn't matter whether you were in a "Democratic", "Republican", or "swing" State. Then our votes would count equally.

But if you're left leaning in a heavily right State (or vice versa), your vote for the presidency literally doesn't matter.


Your vote counts equally under such a system, but not your voice. Iowa has less people than a suburb of New York City. Which is going to get attention from the candidates? Which will be able to extract campaign promises? Sparsely populated areas lose a lot of influence if we were to shift to a popular vote.

Proportional representation in the EC makes some sense, but not doing away with the EC entirely.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Distributed Democracy.

Everyone votes on issues discussed, everyone gets to put in their two pence or cents, and no small group of entitled, pointless, econopuppets between the people and the decision making.


We certainly have the technology for this now, but would it be a good thing? The right of self determination is massively important, but it's also equally important for people to vote on issues they understand. Most people can't vote on the nuance of America's foreign policy such as do we arm and fund Kazakhastan in order to contain Russia's ability to move troops south? If we arm someone there... do we arm a group in the Middle East? Do we aim for closer trade contact with Iran as part of long term stability? And I could go on. These are all subjects that people routinely write very big reports on and there is a lot of information put forward by people who are experts in foreign policy.

Is it right to take their expertise and say, "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" as our vote, despite the case made?

This can apply to others as well, how many of us are qualified to vote on business regulations? Do we have MBA's with decades of experience? Some people certainly do, but the general public? How many in the general population can understand economics beyond that of economics 101 or 102? How many think they understand it better than that but don't?

The average intelligence of our species isn't very high, and no one is intelligent in all matters, so why should they be voting in all matters?

That's my argument against distributed democracy. Having representatives who can sit down 1 on 1 with experts and work out policy seems to me to be a much more effective solution.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Having representatives who can sit down 1 on 1 with experts and work out policy seems to me to be a much more effective solution.

Right?

After all, we are a "united" country.
Can't we all run together toward the future???



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


I am going with Team B&B (Buzzy and Beezer).

Your campaign slogan can be, 'If You Must Waste Your Vote on Someone, Waste it on Us'.

LOL!!!
Love it!!

Not sure if Beezzer is on board, though. He might be...but, you know.....communication issues.
Hope he chimes in on the idea, though.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I am talking not of a referendum in the traditional, once in a while sense of it, but rather that no issue should pass through to the stage where it is acted upon by any government official or administrative functionary, without the express permission and clearance of the people, until it has been discussed in a universally open forum, by all citizens who have something to say upon the issue, and until those discussions and their fruit have been put to the vote and any ideas put forward accepted or scrapped by that process.

All year, every year. No elections, no President, no congress, just the people.

It is also what I want for my nation. There must be no small number of people upon whose honour, the state of a nation rests. Such systems breed corruption and mangled loyalties, and there has been rather enough of that over the years!



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Do you call what is happening now, an effective solution to the task of representing a population?

Because the current model is exactly what you describe, a bunch of special interest groups and politicians elected or chosen to represent the nation in related matters, sitting down and working things out... Only it is for the benefit of the special interest groups, money men, businesses, and multinational interests, that those elected officials currently labour, not for the people.

If the people are the only ones with the power, then no matter how palatable the result, it will belong to the people alone.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
X the electoral college BS, go to the popular vote and do away with the two party system. All candidates should be expected to not only spew forth talking points but have a plan to initiate the desired goals they spout.

We the people also need to see beyond "talking point issues" (most of which are aimed at a very gullible voter base) such as abortion and gay marriage for example two classics that have been battled over back and forth yet have no actual bearing on the economy, foreign policy or creating jobs but instead simply religious rhetoric which if I'm not mistaken church and state should be separate.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Aazadan

Do you call what is happening now, an effective solution to the task of representing a population?

Because the current model is exactly what you describe, a bunch of special interest groups and politicians elected or chosen to represent the nation in related matters, sitting down and working things out... Only it is for the benefit of the special interest groups, money men, businesses, and multinational interests, that those elected officials currently labour, not for the people.

If the people are the only ones with the power, then no matter how palatable the result, it will belong to the people alone.


I don't think that what we're doing right now is ideal, but I guess I'll prove my point by contradicting it. Do we want a system where the legislators aren't any more informed on an issue than the average person? If I'm going to be writing laws on data retention and processing, shouldn't I understand what those things are rather than being of average intelligence and not knowing what 56kbps means in technical terms, being able to quantify data storage/searching, knowing what the cloud is, having a grasp of intellectual property, software licenses, or even to use a recent issue knowing what Net Neutrality is? Writing laws on these issues or any others without actually understanding them would be disastrous.

Now, I don't like what we're currently doing either where our elected officials (privately) admit their ignorance and turn to large corporations and lobbying firms to "educate" them, but I do think it's better than the alternative of no one informed on the issues writing the laws.

My personal fix would be to increase our number of representatives (like going back to the 1:20,000 ratio), and ideally give each person a more narrows slice of power on a committee to write a law, preferably based on their educational/professional background so that we can take advantage of diverse workplace experience. By doing so we could eliminate much of the need for lobbyists in the first place which would remove some of their influence.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join