It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

With internet and phones why do we still have human politicians and let them ruin our lives?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I recently posted that politicians, public servants, classrooms and people on public assistance should have some sort of camera with internet access so that they are recorded at all times while they are on the publics dime.

As we the taxpaying public have a right to on them at all times that they are on the public payroll, might be subject to bribes, or just plain loafing on the job.

The politicians & congressmen would have a hand held computer with an un tamper able* poll numbers viewable by voters in real time) and the politicians would be bound to vote with the majority of the citizens.

But if the citizens are phoning and going online to tell the congressperson how to vote for an issue why would we need the flesh and blood politicians at all? 90+% (I forget the exact percentage but it was in the 90s) of constituants phoning in during the 2008 bailouts told their reps to vote 'no' and they were ignored. This has to stop. It should have stopped a long time ago.

Remember registering for classes by phone in the 80s? The human congress could have been retired and replaced back then.

80% of the Government/states could be run by computer why are we supporting this archaic corrupt monster. ?

To prevent tampering actual voting records could and should be accessible by any other computer so that people who voted one way could check to make sure that their votes were not tampered with/ hacked. And they should have a hard copy which could also be presented as proof if hacking/tampering is suspected.

This is a budding idea it has flaws but it is better than what we have.




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
The political construct has evolved from a time when one had to 'trust' politicians to act according to the mandate of their constituents. Professional politicians have used every weapon in their arsenal to make certain that the paradigm doesn't change.

It gives them the power to do whatever they want, and the freedom to cast their perceived failures on others.

Should we be able to watch their every official move? Yes.

I have seen numerous examples of political representatives being overwhelmingly told what the people wanted them to do, only to have them appear in the media telling the world that they were told otherwise by their constituents. (The initial bailout back in 2008 rings a bell here.) They acted as they were told to act by their party... and by "party" I mean their political leadership, who was in turn directed by the money behind their power.

Will they voluntarily relinquish that power and freedom? I doubt it.

In fact, the last thing they want is popular oversight. It explains why they conduct so many deliberations behind closed doors, and under cover of 'confidentiality.' It explains why, despite their tremendous litany of ads telling us how great they are, our country continues to suffer, even when we are promised change by oath-bound servants who demand extraordinary respect and deference.

They are told to make us believe "they know better" and are "specially suited and experienced" in the complexities of governance. I suspect many are learning that this is a sales pitch, not reality. The stupid ones actually believe it. The others are even more disingenuous because they know they are not in the 'game' for anything other than gain.

What you describe is a modernistic 'plebiscite' scheme which sounds appealing, if it weren't for the fact that under such terms, 51% of the country could literally force the other 49% to wear dunce caps. Democracy is not a viable form of government in a society of uninformed (or misinformed) people. Before such a thing could be attempted, I would want to be certain that the 'voters' are genuine... something that in this digital world is less and less verifiable.

It's a good idea, but you are correct, it needs refinement.

I would start with the total disclosure of any and all meetings conducted in their capacity as representatives.... right now we get almost none of that.
edit on 26-7-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


Basically you are suggesting a form of direct democracy utilising technology as a means of interpreting the will of the people.

What we have is representative democracy where representatives are supposed to take into account the views of all of their constituents and come to the best compromise or act in their best interests as a whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd very much welcome a system where there was a constant guide to what policies the constituents of politicians supported and opposed etc, however to suggest that 51% should be able to vote through a policy that 49% disagree with is fundamentally incorrect, we still need some sort of representative to come to a compromise between those who agree and disagree with certain policies. Our whole system is supposed to be designed on the premise that it stops a slim majority having power over a large minority.
edit on 26-7-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I concur, we should have a referendum on every law with online polling, sure it can be tampered with, but # it will be a million times better then what we have, and when the world sees how good it works theyre populations are bound to join in on this, so much # is wasted with this rediculous system we have.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars What you describe is a modernistic 'plebiscite' scheme which sounds appealing, if it weren't for the fact that under such terms, 51% of the country could literally force the other 49% to wear dunce caps. Democracy is not a viable form of government in a society of uninformed (or misinformed) people. Before such a thing could be attempted, I would want to be certain that the 'voters' are genuine... something that in this digital world is less and less verifiable.


Okay, first refinement.
Have taxes be an opt-in and if you do not previously VOTE to support a program you are not required to pay to support such a program.
Examples, You don't believe in...
Welfare or food stamps - you don't have to pay for them but when you fall on hard times you had better have a plan other than welfare or food stamps because you will not be able to access them.
High speed rail from LA to Sacramento that you will never use ( Who besides legislators would? ) you don't have to pay for it.
Registering your car though the DMV and signing it over to the state and thus subjecting yourself to their laws (Whole threads on that long running scam) you don't have to but don't count on having the police return your stolen car either (on the upside tickets will vanish because the state has no say in your use of your own private property(so drive without that seat belt if you wish you are an adult and you are assuming the risk to do so if you wish))
If you do not have children or feel that you can school your children better at home or a private school you don't have to support the top heavy public school system..BTW Why does the head of the school system in DC need his own private SWAT team? Not really something I want to pay for.

Roads may have to be toll with a, unpaved dirt/gravel easement for pedestrians, non taxed fuel cars and the amish - whom I am starting to respect more and more as people smart enough not to be duped into government traps.



Originally posted by lifeissacredBasically you are suggesting a form of direct democracy utilising technology as a means of interpreting the will of the people.


Look at your paycheck and how little your are benefiting from your work and tell me how far off my ideas are. We are paying for services and insurance that we will never use

Granted
We (USA) went to the moon. (Someone would have and I don't really see how my life is better for it. Now like Heinlien predicted there are private companies who are capable of space travel for a price don't really think all that NASA/JPL/(every other Gov money Sponge company) really produced anything that would not have made it's way to market without taxpayer money do you really think without NASA you would still be without Velcro by now?
We (USA) have shown we can nuke and beat up other counties at will (not something I'm proud of)
We (USA) have the most costly education and the most useless graduates (ditto above)
We (USA) are paying more than the socialistic countries that we supposedly mock and not receiving half of the benefits that they offer for a lesser cost.


edit on 26-7-2011 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


The point I was making was that from the sound of your post you want 'the people' to vote on everything. When the people vote on absolutely everything and there is no one to interpret the will of the people, we basically end up with a situation when a slim majority of the population can dictate policy against the will of a large minority. The point of having elected representatives is supposed to be so that they can make a balanced decision which is for the benefit of the entire constituency and best represents the differing viewpoints of the people. What we need are politicians that actually listen to their constituents and ignore lobbyists.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


Basically you are suggesting a form of direct democracy utilising technology as a means of interpreting the will of the people.

What we have is representative democracy where representatives are supposed to take into account the views of all of their constituents and come to the best compromise or act in their best interests as a whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd very much welcome a system where there was a constant guide to what policies the constituents of politicians supported and opposed etc, however to suggest that 51% should be able to vote through a policy that 49% disagree with is fundamentally incorrect, we still need some sort of representative to come to a compromise between those who agree and disagree with certain policies. Our whole system is supposed to be designed on the premise that it stops a slim majority having power over a large minority.
edit on 26-7-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)


Right now, only Switzerland has a direct democracy. They are geographically small enough to do it. The US is far to large to have the majority decide for the minority (there's no where to run). On a state level, this would work wonderfully (especially if federal government were minimized to near nil).

In fact, I'm toying with the idea of running for president in 2016 and my platform will be "Whatever you indicate in the polls, that's what I'm gonna do!" That way, we'll have direct democracy by proxy.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Even at the state level direct democracy is a risky business. The lack of compromise with direct democracy is it's biggest flaw. If we had a system of semi-direct democracy where people could vote on issues and then representatives could make a final decision on policy based upon the results that would at least go some way towards minimising some of the issues.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Even at the state level direct democracy is a risky business. The lack of compromise with direct democracy is it's biggest flaw. If we had a system of semi-direct democracy where people could vote on issues and then representatives could make a final decision on policy based upon the results that would at least go some way towards minimising some of the issues.


So... what I'm hearing from you is that I can't count on your vote in 2016?



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I'd love to vote for you in 2016, but unfortunately I'm not a US citizen.




top topics



 
3

log in

join