posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 10:32 PM
It's a novel idea. I actually think it could work to some degree but not completely.
The less power a government has, the more direct democracy can be allowed. The more entangled a nation becomes in complex issues, the more necessary
it becomes to maintain a consistent policy guided by "experts".
I think it would be a very bad idea to direct democracy into action for every little thing- such a system would take us on a peace keeping mission on
friday and pull us back out on monday. In some ways all of our policy would come to mirror Clinton's "focus group foreign policy".
Now on the other hand, some issues the American people SHOULD have some direct say in- a veto at the very least.
For example, remember the government shutdown when Clinton and the congress faced off over the budget? I think a situation like that would definately
warrant some direct democracy, because we were playing with fire over politics there. I think it would have been nice to allow for a veto-override by
popular vote there. If Clinton had the votes in congress to stave off an override, but 2/3s of the American people said "just sign the budget" thats
an option we perhaps should have had.
The logistics are impossible though. You've got to verify your results- you couldn't do it in a timely and cost-effective manner unless it was
electronic, and that could be tampered with. Even if not tampered with you've got samping errors. A guy with two jobs and a kid isn't going to vote,
but you can bet your butt that the country club vote will come in once it's too dark for golf.
It's a nice idea though. I remember it from "With Honors". That was a great movie in a lot of ways.