Please prove me wrong, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:22 AM by XTexan
Originally posted by DINSTAAR
In the 21st century, this type of governance is a no-brainer. Too bad it gives regular people too much power and the elites will never go for it.

It's good to see fellow ATSer's poking around at this idea, and it is startling to see others dismiss it. I hope the kool-aid was good, because it is going to kill you.


I agree that this type of governance has its benifits, however as I have already stated, the "majority" will need to have oversight over their new found powers... A job that our current judiciary branch seems to be unable to do.

Giving "power to the people" is fine but the majority CANNOT be allowed to trample the minorities rights... As I stated before this is not a Democracy it is a Constitutional Republic. The "Constitutional" part must stay intact, even when the majority votes against it...

There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed before this could take place... such as:

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
5) We have a relatively small amount of decision makers at the moment, which makes tracking bribers or underhanded dealing easier. If everyone becomes the decision maker, there is no way to track and punish all of the "cash for votes" and corruption that would emerge, you couldn't even try to fight it.


He makes a good point, corruption would run rampant... IMHO

[edit on 27-7-2008 by XTexan]


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 07:40 AM by gate13
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.

as i do tend to agree with you the 1% voted in to make those complex decisions also seem to show they dont really have much of an idea either


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 12:59 PM by poet1b
I think the idea has considerable merit. It wouldn't be easy to do, but it has possibilities.

We could have public oversight for many things, not just approval of laws, but actions on the part of the executive branch, demanding that incompetents get fired for not doing their jobs, forcing action to be taken or not taken. How about review of judges and the policies of the courts and the police. There are a lot of judges who have far more power than they should have, who abuse the system regularly. At least start opening up access to information.

Having been through a child custody dispute, it was obvious that the whole system is based around secrecy, with people making decisions without bothering to look at the laws, because they could hide behind the system. If you have a lawyer, the judge automatically sends him the reasons for the decisions he made, but if you don't have a lawyer, you must ask for these things, and that is not something they will tell you. Getting information out of these people is like getting blood from a turnip.

Just think how much pork barrel spending the public would eliminate if they had the opportunity. How many federal contractors would be canned for overcharging, and failing to complete projects on time if the public were given the ability to review their actions. I think you would find that the public wouldn't be approving $1,300 toilet seats. The public would demand that CEO's of banks that are bailed out have to give back all the money they were given as bonuses. Action would have already been taken to shut down illegal immigration and the war on drugs would be over. School administrators would be making a whole heck of a lot less money, and home construction inspectors would be toning down their over abuse of their powers.

It seems that the internet could be used a great deal more to give the public far more oversight of government.

Let the revolution begin.


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 01:31 PM by badwolf2012
Not only is your idea doable, it's actually incredibly simple to make happen

All it takes is for politicians to engage the online community. MSM is a joke now days. I speculate that by 2012 most of the politicians elected will be engaged with the online discourse.

We don't have to make a new political party or change any laws. An Internet government can function seamlessly on top of what we already have. All it takes is to elect politicians willing to engage the online community.

This is happening already at www.campaignforliberty.com.... The official site will launch on September 2nd. We'll be taking over the Republican Party.

Once people and politicians embrace the web, political success will not be dependent on vast sums of money or how much airtime news networks a lot. It will be dependent on how compelling their platform is, on how compelling the supporters are.

Anyone who thinks that the Internet won't radically change the world is mistaken.


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:18 PM by The Vagabond
reply to post by foremanator


Your argument is deeply flawed.

The poor are not well represented under the current system, as you say, however that does not provide any support for your proposal of a system that would do an even poorer job of representing them.


Another point has come to mind for me. Not even an organization as comparatively small as congress can manage its schedule in a completely democratic fashion. They need the Rules Committee and the Ways and Means Committee to keep things moving smoothly. Those committees are of course very powerful positions for sabotaging or shepherding legislation, even when the people contending against that power are career politicians. Imagine how powerful they would be against the average citizens.

We are not merely looking at the poor not being able to make every vote, but at an elite few being able to exclude the poor and many other demographics. And those people would be INVISIBLE in the system you propose, mark my words. The sheer volume would ensure it. There would be so many proposed revisions to bills that you never even knew you didn't get to see, because some aparatchik topped other votes on the website, etc.

Unlike in the current system, you wouldn't know who was screwing you. If push comes to shove we can always form a good old fashioned lynch mob, place congress under citizens arrest, and conduct the trial and execution right out on the Mall. Even that admittedly unlikely recourse is gone from us in the proposed system of direct democracy.


And that's before we even get into the obvious problems with budget. Democracy is done for when the poor realize that they can vote themselves money. Frankly, a republic is necessary to protect democracy from such problems.


Now, as I discussed back when I was a candidate in the Above Politics election, I do believe that there should be a federal ballot initiative process, including one for impeachment and constitutional ammendment. It would certainly do us some good to be able to make an end run around the politicians on matters of importance. It would however be a bad idea to place the whole dang system in the hands of an unreliable, underinformed public that is not at all prepared to contend with the political machinations of the elite.


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:40 PM by foremanator
Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by foremanator


Your argument is deeply flawed.

The poor are not well represented under the current system, as you say, however that does not provide any support for your proposal of a system that would do an even poorer job of representing them.



I was being sarcastic. Of course the poor are not being represented. Is the point I was making


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 04:17 PM by Roper
reply to post by IAttackPeople


"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

With what is proposed by the OP, we would have anarchy. We would be voting on every thing,every day.

Roper
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Virginia House Bill 1160: Nullify the NDAA
  Posted 15 days ago with 10 member flags
The One Party System replaces the Two Party system in the U.S.
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags
pro Israel or aginst them read this asap!
  Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags
The Solution
  Posted 3 days ago with 7 member flags
2010 Hate Crime Statistics
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags
Ron Paul\'s fans are building like legos
  Posted 14 days ago with 1 member flags