Please prove me wrong

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

Because we have no power

America is in a Constitutional republic
which is not a democracy (SHush ! dont tell the Americans they don't know this)
and Canada is in a socialist democracy

one of these two countries will lose its laws if the North American union proceeds as it surely will as the treaties are already signed sealed and delivered.

Many Americans who are self centered and think they are number 1 will find it a hard pill to swallow when they find out that they are the people who will lose their constitution and laws and that they will be accepting the British based law system of Canada.
which will override any American laws
on the most important issues I believe there should be referendums
so that everyone has the right to vote on an issue, that would be a real democracy.
One thing I can't get out of my mind is that in 2006 When President Bush came to Canada to sign the treaty of the North American Union he was over heard telling our Prime Minister " I am glad to be back home" ?
this puzzles me to this very day .

It probably wouldn't work to have the public writing the laws of congress, but the public could be choosing who controls what committees, and in breaking deadlock. The public could also be given some editorial power over the bills congress passes, especially the budget.

What the public could demand is more transparency in government, and more oversight, the ability to force the executive branch to do its job, or to stop overdoing its job when the President feels that he doesn't have to follow the will of the people.

A workable system where the public has more checks and balances over the government is quite possible. We would just have to be realistic about what controls the public can and should have over the system. With the creation of the internet, it is only logical for the information age to produce a better quality of government as well.

I think the best is a Hybrid system.

the public via computer and or secured phones call in to their congressman
to tell him which way to vote have the total of the votes and which way they
voted displayed in real time to the public
and also which way the congressman voted

but the last time this system was suggested by a congressman they hauled him off on trumped up charges I believe he is still in jail
and his name escapes me at the moment

a pure referendum on all the issues would be a disaster in America ,could you imagine it
most Americans don't even bother to vote
the country is a pit of corruption to the point that a majority have given up and dropped out of system all together.
while another group of Americans strut around thinking they are number one while the economy is crumbling down all around them , decay has set in, and infrastructure is failing down.to make matters worse the Americans that are mature and could be trusted with a system like this their numbers are dwindling by 10,000+ each year as they leave America behind for good.
Clearly Americans are not mature enough as a people to be able to handle a true democracy . Not even in matters concerning the SPP NAU
apparently.

reply to post by foremanator


It is the language that the bills are written in that most people would not understand, thus preventing them from making a knowledgeable choice on the matter. The person would then have to rely on the translation of the language, a summary of the bill that would be prejudiced by the opinion of the translator, thus preventing them from making a knowledgeable choice. Not to mention, most people do not posses the education in law, sociology, and economics required to make a knowledgeable choice.

So, why do we not have a direct voting policy? Knowledge.

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by foremanator

 

It is the language that the bills are written in that most people would not understand, thus preventing them from making a knowledgeable choice on the matter. The person would then have to rely on the translation of the language, a summary of the bill that would be prejudiced by the opinion of the translator, thus preventing them from making a knowledgeable choice. Not to mention, most people do not posses the education in law, sociology, and economics required to make a knowledgeable choice.

So, why do we not have a direct voting policy? Knowledge.

Once again, I agree... Nothing involving the people can be done unless a mass government/constitution education program is started. The fact that we dont already have one speaks volumes about our country. The powers that be prefer us to have no clue about how/why things work...

[edit on 27-7-2008 by XTexan]