Please prove me wrong

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
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




posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

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


i disagree too, if a dead tie, who gets the final say? i think thats why we vote for people to take on such tasks to handle that and weigh the pros and cons and listen to the people of what is really needed

i dont think internet access is a high as you think here in N america

alot of people dont have it, and it would take so much longer for things to get done, it just seems like more of a mess to have it that way, even though i can see your point but then again thats the reason we elect representatives for the people

even though at times that seems to not work



ok so between these 2 posts you are the weakest link,er, i mean, proven wrong

[edit on 26-7-2008 by MurderCityDevil]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
reply to post by foremanator
 




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

yeah, and the people making our decisions are much more brilliant huh.......give me a break.

i agree though this is not a good idea, but nice try.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by pureevil81]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
If man would restore his faith in me, then all would be well in the end.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
proving wrong is easy, but costly. just implement the idea.


the cause of dissatisfaction does not just rely in the mode of government, but its structures. you don't need the internet (though it can be helpful or detrimental, depending on use) you need to start at the muncipial level.

when people take their surroundings into their own hands they will soon become confident enough to govern nations. as a rule of thumb, most things do not need to be relegated, they are just insanely profitable when it's done anyway.

it should be noted that such 'grasroots' movements exist, the problems start when they are successful, because the majority does not understand and specialized LE have a free reign. search this site and the internet for local currencies and how the feds deal with people who try it.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I'm not from America, but looking in from the outside, I thought that's what you already did?

No really, its about as sane as driving a motorbike with a sheep attached.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

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

Its definitely doable these days.Somehow for all people to vote on all things.Instead of voting one person in who then makes decisions about peoples lives that not all agree with.
But as you see you will get 100 responses from psychopathic power hungry monsters who just love telling other people what to do.
Psycho ignorant nazi's who want to own other people and think they are higher than them.
Nutty insecure clones who want to control everyone will always oppose this idea.
But in reality its a fair and good idea.
Seeing as though we can clearly see over history and over time that NO politicians can ever be trusted to make major life changing decisions that are best for all people.They make them based on whats best for themselves.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Devil
 



I challenge you to a holy war.

[edit on 7/26/0808 by Jesus_Christ]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jesus_Christ
I challenge you to a holy war.


who are you? and why are you not contributing anything of worth

yeah its funny, jesus with thumbs up

but really



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
your right about everyone having access to the
internet,if they dont have it at home they can
get it free at the library if they can get themselves
up off the couch first.

we vote them in so they can make decisions for us.
I joined a group www.downsizedc.org...
that helps me write letters to my senators and rep.


You can join and help out too by writing to your
senators and rep. tell them you will do everything
in your power to make sure they are not voted into
office again if they vote in an unconstitutional way.

I dont agree with the bailout, more money will
be created causing more inflation, causing an
even harder time for people like me just struggling
to get by.
thanks a lot subprime credit homeowners.



Is that really you in your avatar or is it a scene
from a movie?



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by foremanator
...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. ...


Wrong! Not almost everyone in side the USA has internet or acess. I think less then 50% actually have internet access, and then we have the technicologically impaired who can't use it. However even if everyone was online it would still be a bad idea. The greater population are dumbasses. There are people that believe the world is run by a shadow boogyman "NWO" and unclear thinking like that would lead to disaster. There are also those that seak some twisted sense of power though computing.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by foremanator
 


There are problems with both direct democracy itself and with the idea of implementing it via the internet as we now know it.

1. Because the poor are much less likely to have computers in their homes, and could not possibly all access a computer elsewhere on a daily basis to participate in every single vote, their voice in the system would be significantly reduced. As of 2005, less than 50% of households making less than 30,000 a year had internet access (Pewinternet.org).

2. Security. The system has to be secure on multiple levels.
There has to be identity verification for example. My online banking security is so thorough that sometimes I have trouble accessing it- that doesn't make voting easy on the elderly.
The system has to be secure against foreign electronic warfare capabilities. Do we really want the Mossad voting on whether or not America should go to war with Iran?
But that's not all. The government would have to guarantee against viruses, power-outages, and phone disconnections as a matter of preserving voting rights. It could even be claimed that ISPs do not have the right to cancel service anymore in that case.

There's more, but I'm distracted, so, to be continued.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by foremanator
 


There are problems with both direct democracy itself and with the idea of implementing it via the internet as we now know it.

1. Because the poor are much less likely to have computers in their homes, and could not possibly all access a computer elsewhere on a daily basis to participate in every single vote, their voice in the system would be significantly reduced. As of 2005, less than 50% of households making less than 30,000 a year had internet access (Pewinternet.org).

2. Security. The system has to be secure on multiple levels.
There has to be identity verification for example. My online banking security is so thorough that sometimes I have trouble accessing it- that doesn't make voting easy on the elderly.
The system has to be secure against foreign electronic warfare capabilities. Do we really want the Mossad voting on whether or not America should go to war with Iran?
But that's not all. The government would have to guarantee against viruses, power-outages, and phone disconnections as a matter of preserving voting rights. It could even be claimed that ISPs do not have the right to cancel service anymore in that case.

There's more, but I'm distracted, so, to be continued.


Oh like the poor are well represented now.
As for securtiy. like online banking (atms) federal information ect ect. I guess thats not secure but we just risk it.
I think it would be even more secure if I was able to see my vote by logging on and actually seeing it.
Dont be scared nobody really cares who you vote for. Its only one vote after all

[edit on 26-7-2008 by foremanator]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Well I have taken in all of your replies. And I am grateful for all of them.

I guess I just don't see things the way most of you do.
All of the issues that have been brought up, I actually have considered them before. And I still do not for see anything of great danger that cannot be worked around or a solution given.

When I look at what is being done and I am aware of the corruption that goes on inside the halls of bureaucracy . And the way these things get covered up. I would stand by any system that takes power away from the few and enables the many



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Haven't read all the posts but their is a congressman running for president from somewhere (not a front runner) that is promoting that general idea, modelled after Switzerland I believe. The big loop holes I see are these, majority rule means 51 % control the other 49% or 40% wins out over 39%, 21% or what ever the percentages would be. Rather than a real "Limited Government", limited laws. 2nd it would be difficult to every verify that votes where really counted. Debates or discussions would be difficult and communication of information would likely be caught up in misrepresentation and other mumbo jumbo that would confuse and mislead. Otherwise, I'm all for it. I think we would all like more direct input into the process.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ReelView
 


I think people would be fair with one another. The only time you really see a 49 -51 split is when it comes to politics.
I believe the most crucial thing you would have to control is. Fair unbiased media that is strictly non profit and peer reviewed.Peoples opinions are based on their information source. I think that's criminal



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

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.


It is not an idiotic idea, people power is a workable solution.

Yes, the banks have all colluded to pull the biggest Conjob and they make it look like it's the clients fault, this was intended to be such, a pre-plotted conjob. They should not be bailed out, instead they should be hanged for Treason.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

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.


I must say I agree. It wouldn't be such a good idea. Like Jamie said, most of the people in the United States do not understand the underlying consequences of most of the issues that effect them. Remember that the people that have power have somehow earned it (most of the time) usually through some heart-warming success story or hard work and education. Somehow, they deserve it however, that doesn't mean that they don't abuse the power that has been granted to them.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

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.


I think your a FOOL for saying that YES!!!! not everybody has internet TRUE!!! Alot of political decision RELY ON COMMON SENSE!!!!!! Which most americans don't have including knowledge except from the T.V.





top topics
 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join