It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why not a True Democracy?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:37 PM
Despite the fact that America loves to throw the word 'Democracy' about, most of us here are aware that we live in a republic. However, I believe that technology has reached a point where we can create a true democracy with relative ease.

Basically, I would like to remove the House of Representatives and replace it with a vote from each and every person. Each registered voter would be entitled to a single vote on every piece of proposed legislation.

This may seem like a massive undertaking, but I consider it to be very feasible. We would simply need to give everyone, for free, something like an iPhone or Blackberry where they would be able to view, comment on and vote on legislation that has already passed the senate.

"But giving everyone an iPhone would cost like a trillion dollars!!!?!!1"

No. The production cost of an iPhone currently sits at $173.34. The device one would need to read, comment on and vote on legislation doesn't need to but maybe half of what an iPhone can so I think it would be cheaper. But using the above figure as the highest cost per unit, and considering there are about 180,000,000 registered voters in America we're looking at a start up cost of around $31 billion.

There are other cost considerations, such as the infrastructure to support the system and on going cost such as maintenance that would have to be provided free to public. Still, by abolishing the House we would gain about $4 billion a year, which may well cover the maintenance costs.

The whole system seems fiscally sound to me, as it would only account for about 0.011% of the governments 2008 budget to get going.

"But what are you going to do... have everyone write laws? We will be voting on stupid stuff all day long."

The way I see it working best is a lot like it does now. Elected officials in the Senate would present new legislation as they currently do, and legislation would be voted on by the Senate as it currently is. Only after passing the Senate would legislation be sent to the masses for approval.

Having passed the Senate, the legislation will be automatically downloaded to everyone's voting tool where they would have a week to review and make their decision. If someone dissents, they would be given the opportunity to mention why. Thus, if rejected, the law makers will know what needs changing to make it pass.

I am aware that the whole idea is a massive undertaking and stands a snowballs chance in hell of ever being postulated by someone with the means to implement it, but I thinks its at the very least plausible.

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:13 PM
So true! If we lived in a democracy, then we wouldn't have congress...instead, every person would be equipped with a YES/NO button so we could collectively vote on the outcome of EVERY action our government takes...with majority rule!

Just my 2 cents

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:21 PM
There is nevertheless a flaw in 'true' democracy.

Three foxes and a hen are stranded on a desert island. They call for a vote to see who will get eaten first.....

Democracies allow the majority to invalidate the wishes of the minority, but more importantly, they allow the majority to oppress the minority legally.

The checks and balances the true form our government was intended to have were more than adequate safeguard. Especially considering the once sacrosanct principle of redress.

Nowadays this is all moot, regrettably.

I would agree that the technology certainly exists that could enable instant plebiscites, where every citizen could weigh in on important issues; except due to commercial code and the pro-industry stance of the government overlords (the Federal government) it is unlikely that the opportunity for abuse and disenfranchisement would be passed up by those in a position of trust. As we have learned over the last 100 years or so, our trust in those the political system forces us to choose from cannot be trusted... at all.

We should, of course, be able to contest their abuses via the Judicial Branch, but they have become tools of the political parties as well. And since the higher education system has been utterly usurped by corporate and profiteering interests, our esteemed elite trades like medicine and law are actually 'part' of the problem.

I find your proposition to be one of hope. That's good. But the simple solutions are the ones that have been invalidated by those who know if you want to hide your abuse and have no accountability..., everything must at least appear to be too complicated for mere citizens to contend with, hence we reach a point (even if it is a lie) where we 'need' them.

As you can see, it is similar with the financial choke-hold the supranational banking cartel has on the planet, all they have to do is threaten the world with 'chaos' and we have to give them whatever they want.

Democracy cannot hold back that storm. Only a true representative democratic republic stands a chance; which is why our representative form of government was carefully corrupted and seeded with agents of her own destruction. - and the opportunists feed on her like leeches.

More's the pity. I truly loved the America I served in war and peace. Unfortunately THIS is not the country I grew up in. This is THEIR country now.

We can take it back. It is possible to stop all of the shenanigans, but the people must stop watching TV, and stop reading the propaganda the corporatists and opinion-engineers spew at us 24-7 in full surround sound high definition on 500 channels.

America must restore here community base - and accept that partisan ideology is nonsense and a distraction from reality. America must teach her children to think and read.

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

So it seems to be a double edged sword. We either decide for ourselves what is best for us or we let someone else do it for us. I'll take the former, even at risk of my own peril.

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:28 PM
while it sounds an attractive process it would lead to the pop-idol-ification of the political system.

no mere human could be expected to understand and interprate the legalese jargon bureaucrats and lawyers use so you'ld just end up with a popularity contest based solely on carisma and sound-bites..........hang on......... i've forgotten my point..... nevermind.

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by pieman

- yup.... there IS something satisfying about noticing the 'government' by 'celebrity popularity' paradigm the media has 'gifted' us. The death of the free press was manufactured by these people.

Here's an interesting video..., talking about the American form of government.

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by pieman
no mere human could be expected to understand and interprate the legalese jargon bureaucrats and lawyers use

Is it mere accident/coincidence that legislation is worded as such? Perhaps, is intentionally created that way so the population will not pay attention or even understand. one thing I know for sure...I have no problem interpreting the constitution or the bill of rights. Why? because our forefathers intended it to be that way.

Just my 2-cents

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:28 PM
ah, i dunno about all this intentional subversion of politics and political language, i have a feeling it's far more to do with people making themselves feel special or better.

it amounts to more or less the same outcome but if we let ourselves believe that it is about them being so good at political thinking or population manipulation that we can't even fathom their motivations then we haven't a hope of winning our freedom.

the world would be a better place pretty quick if we could get our collective # together enough to demand that our governments govern us in the language we use and understand.

for a long time the catholic church dominated religious belief in europe by using latin to preach so that normal people wouldn't understand the message and would need to rely on interpretation. the church didn't do this to retain or keep power as such, it just did it because it made priests feel superior.

politicians do the same thing with the legal jargon today but i don't think it's intentional, it's just a great big ego stroking mental masturbation frenzy. they could say the same thing in legalese or just normal language but they choose legalese because it makes them sound like they have an edge, a reason why we pay them all that cash to do very little.

personally, i'ld prefer to pay them for managing stuff really really well and then explaining to me how they did it and why.

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:14 PM

Originally posted by pieman
the world would be a better place pretty quick if we could get our collective # together enough to demand that our governments govern us in the language we use and understand.

That is THE THING! If, only if! If only the population would admit that collectively we are laymen and need everything simplified. New Rule: No law shall consist of more than 1 simple, non-compound sentence. With no sentence containing a word above a 6th grade comprehension level.

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:40 PM
Reguardless of what we are told, we neither live in a Democracy or a Republic. We live in a Corpratacracy where the plebians exist only as a
cash cow to be used and sacrificed to the Gods of commercialism.

If voting really made any difference, it would be illegal.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house!!

[edit on 19-3-2009 by whaaa]

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:50 PM
reply to post by whaaa

There you go bringing reality into this!

Sadly, you are correct. I think this world is run by a supranational banking cartel that relies on the political ideology of a few celebrities to keep people thinking the understand what the bottom line is...


posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by whaaa
If voting really made any difference, it would be illegal.

i can't let this pass without disagreeing. the reason voting makes no difference, the reason we live in a corporatocracy, is simply because people believe the above and don't bother

corporations know that the only way to make sure things go their way is to be really involved in politics, they donate, they lobby, they make sure that politicians hear their voice.

people, normal citizens, don't bother. they don't write to politicians, or e-mail them or phone them and scream blue murder down the phone. they don't join political parties or start their own. a big chunk of them don't even bother voting!!!!!

the only voice politicians hear most of the time is the corporate voice, so thats what they go with. if you can't be bothered to make yourself heard, there's no point in crying about people ignoring you.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:23 AM
I don't know about you, but i don't have time to read through every bill that goes through the house... in fact, it would seem that people who's job it is to do that very thing are strapped for time. If we did this the language in bills would become even more confusing and cryptic, and nothing would ever be passed. Similarly, rule by law, or "republic" is always preferable to rule by mob, or "democracy." Well, almost always, although right now I'd like to see a mob give everyone in Washington some good 'ol American tar and feathering... or hangings... maybe just a severe beating... whatever we deem them worthy of. probably all of those things in that order.

new topics

top topics


log in