New Democracy?!?!!

How feasible would a Congress, run by the citizens of the U.S.A., do, as opposed to an elected Congress?

Think about that. I know you want to jump the gun, and give your two cents, about how I'm crazy. Think about it.

With the technology we have, could we not set up a secure network, that would allow a citizen to log in via our pointless social security numbers, and vote on issues, instead of an individual, being corrupted to vote on vested interests?

Maybe I am crazy, or maybe a revolutionary..?

Can't beat them? Make them obselete.

It just dawned on me, that probably no one looks at this forum. Do they?

Originally posted by Myendica
How feasible would a Congress, run by the citizens of the U.S.A., do, as opposed to an elected Congress?

Think about that. I know you want to jump the gun, and give your two cents, about how I'm crazy. Think about it.

With the technology we have, could we not set up a secure network, that would allow a citizen to log in via our pointless social security numbers, and vote on issues, instead of an individual, being corrupted to vote on vested interests?

Maybe I am crazy, or maybe a revolutionary..?

Can't beat them? Make them obselete.

I mean theoretically that sounds like a good idea, but I think a problem with execution would come up when you get into legal law issues. Try reading some of the initiatives that the congress vote's on, I like to think I'm a pretty smart guy but I have issues just reading them.

So you have an issue with "how do we account for all likelihoods" I.E. we could say okay everyone vote for if killing is wrong, everyones gonna say yes, but what about specific situations that have to be written in, then the ability for a country to understand it drop's off, and even more so the further you get into it.

So I like the idea, but execution seem's like it would have an issue, kinda like communism, a good idea and a terrible terrible execution

reply to post by Myendica


OMG.... that would be even worse than what we have now. Maybe if you made people take some kind of IQ test first. Do you really want your idiot neighbor that keeps popping out kids they cant afford have a direct vote on things.

reply to post by Myendica

Can't beat them? Make them obselete.

You can beat Congress and the passage and subsequent repeal of the 18th Amendment is the most obvious example of the people blatantly refusing to accept Congress as an authority of what is a right and what is not. Sadly, and even tragically, the American people are more interested in fighting for their right to drink alcohol than they are to fight for rights in general.

You and every other registered voter can serve on a jury and refuse to acquit someone who has been charged with a "crime" based on bogus legislation. The courts love to call this jury nullification. In reality what it is, would be the final word on legislation. The very last and final word on legislation.

I look at it this way.

more votes, more input, means more of what people want is the majority.

Most likely, a large majority still wouldn't vote, and perhaps votes still get bought, but atleast we get to take part in politics, instead of politics taken us apart.

I believe some Greek philosopher said somthing along those lines.

reply to post by ZuluChaka


My neighbors arent popping out kids, but I get your point.

I think that this helps the idea, being now, because everyone is involved, we would encourage more studies, and better education.

Technologically speaking, it could work in theory. But it would never work in practice. A democracy is majority rule. When a majority rules, all sorts of horrible things can happen to people in the minority. That's why our founders gave us a Republic, where the the majority and minority both have an equal say. That way the majority can't abuse it's power.

Is our current Republic broken, absolutely. But true democracy would be an absolute nightmare, unless you're on the winning side.

reply to post by Myendica

more votes, more input, means more of what people want is the majority.

This argument is precisely why the Founders established a republic, to protect the rights of the minority from the mindless ravages of the majority.

Most likely, a large majority still wouldn't vote, and perhaps votes still get bought, but atleast we get to take part in politics, instead of politics taken us apart.

No one is preventing you from taking part in politics today. All people hold the inherent political power, and you can either exercise that power or abdicate it, that choice is yours to make.

I believe some Greek philosopher said somthing along those lines.

If you cannot name the Greek philosopher you are parroting, what makes you so sure the thought is valid? I believe some Greek philosopher once said that too.

Perhaps it could be a way of us voting on what issues Congress should work on then.

We have no oversight, and will never get any, unless we somehow do it ourselves.

Maybe its wishful thinking for a better solution.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Considering that I didnt paraphase, nor quote what the philosopher actually said, I'm not acrually parroting? as you mention.

Though, I applaud your enthusiasm in your destruction of this idea.

I never said it was a good one.

We are quickly losing control of this Republic though.

reply to post by Myendica

We are quickly losing control of this Republic though.

We are most certainly losing control of this republic, but what may appear to be quickly is only the rapidity of exponential movement. We have been losing control of the republic for well over 100 years now.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


i gotta say i appreciate your input.

yes sometimes i lack investigation and knowledge, but i often get ideas that appear good to me.

thank you again and perhaps you can own me again sometimes when i try to bring up ideas i know not too much about.

enjoy

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Myendica

 

We are quickly losing control of this Republic though.

We are most certainly losing control of this republic, but what may appear to be quickly is only the rapidity of exponential movement. We have been losing control of the republic for well over 100 years now.

problem is i haven't seen anything that resembles a republic in my lifetime. during that time there has been more of one bloodline in the white house than any other. that much is apparent. and i'm not exactly a youngster.

(sniff) smells like monarchy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in regards to "new democracy" or rather, true democracy:

thats the kind of democracy one finds on a pirate vessel. so... who wants to be captain?

where is the middle ground between a small ruling class of elitist douche-bags and a foaming-at-the-mouth horde?

IQ test? screen voters? to regulate this would defy the spirit of voting, and the declaration that "all men are created equal". but then again so does the electoral college...

Sounds a lot like direct democracy, a system im a big fan of if it can be made to work. if your looking for more public involvment try participatory economics for some good ideas, its not the best system but does offer some inspiration/ideas. i cant do links off a phone so your gonna have to google them yourselfs - sorry

Originally posted by AnonymousJ
Sounds a lot like direct democracy, a system im a big fan of if it can be made to work. if your looking for more public involvment try participatory economics for some good ideas, its not the best system but does offer some inspiration/ideas. i cant do links off a phone so your gonna have to google them yourselfs - sorry

Arguably any system is good if it can be made to work.

It's just a pretty big "if". Tyranny of the Majority would be the result-something the American OP (s/he seems American due to use of phrases, anyway) should remember is partially what the Constitution guards against.

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Good guess... haha

I feel the Constitution has lost its governance. U.S. needs to re-phrase it, and make it more specific in some aspects, and more vague in others.

Privacy needs to be added, along with defining "pursuit of happiness..."

Such a thing won't happen...

Infact I don't think anything will except the innevitable fracture of the Union and another civil war.

There is no such thing as the USA. It said it exists, but really the only thing that stands is the U.S. corporation.

There are no American Citizens. Your name is a corporation used against you, because most people need Lawyers for court.

Congress is pointless, all they do is pass bills that they never read in the first place. They have no power anymore, they sure live lavish life styles though.

Voting is an Illusion used by the system to trick people into thinking they have a choice, when really it is just the Illusion of Choice.

Just thought you guys should know

reply to post by Quickfix


Noted.

thus the start of the thread to change it...?

I don't know

Originally posted by Quickfix
There is no such thing as the USA. It said it exists, but really the only thing that stands is the U.S. corporation.

There are no American Citizens. Your name is a corporation used against you, because most people need Lawyers for court.

Congress is pointless, all they do is pass bills that they never read in the first place. They have no power anymore, they sure live lavish life styles though.

Voting is an Illusion used by the system to trick people into thinking they have a choice, when really it is just the Illusion of Choice.

Just thought you guys should know

You clearly do have a choice, just not a very large one.

"Congress" is made up of many individuals, some of whom may act in the way you describe.

Similarly, "the system" is just people, most of them doing what they're told.