Let The People Vote? Yes...On Every Bill!!

reply to post by dolphinfan

To even consider this kind of move you would have to be fully supportive of three things - A literacy test. - A civics test - A reasonable high poll tax Absent that you would have absolute mob rule

Everyone's argument seems to be that people are too dumb to do anything.
Gee... could this be because we have been purposely dumbed-down by our leaders????

reply to post by Maslo

Democracy 2.0

That's a great catch phrase... sums it up nicely.

Calls for a Direct Democracy always interest me because I get the perception that those who call for it do not think the political theory through. Instead it is just called for and assumed that all the ills of the country would instantly disappear if we were all allowed to cast our votes upon legislation.

Using data from 2010, we can see how many registered voters there are across the nation. Estimates put approximately 217,000,000 persons eligible to vote, out of that number only 90,000,000 actually turnout to vote. That puts a nationwide turnout to around 41%. So either way you have the minority, which is the majority imposing their desires upon the rest of the country.

Lets do some though exercises and present some scenarios in just how disastrous and dangerous it would be to have Direct Democracy on a Federal (well, it would become National) scale.

Scenario 1 – Using the OPs ideas

A legislative bill is introduced that calls for every person in the nation to receive a monthly stipend from the Treasury. The bill is presented on a secure government website and we all log on to cast our vote.

How many people do you think wouldn’t vote to receive free money?


Maslo’s ideas

Rule of the Wise sounds neat, but again is just as dangerous. Eventually the “Wise” majority will become smaller and smaller until there is a very small and protected “wise” class that has adjusted, via a Direct Democracy, the rules to make it into the “wise” to even cast a vote.

To be honest I think you could improve things a hell of a lot by staffing the upper house on the lines of a demarchy.

Each bill proposed by a government must then pass scrutiny of a house full of average citizens selected at random (like a jury) and cloistered (like a jury) until they have rejected/passed or amended the bill.

There would be no feasible way for corporate interests to influence bills (they can't bribe a cloistered random selection of the populace), there would be no way for special interest groups or local political corruption to play a part either.

Think of it as a man on the street common sense/corruption filter for legislation.

"AtoMIcoM"
========

they give us honey
toxify the hive
they print our money
tell us how to survive

god bless the day
a man would open his eyes
to the root of evil
wrappin 'round his thighs

they say it's sunny
but it rains so cold
they feed our demons,
makes us doubt our souls

they sell us freedom
but we're bought and sold
they give us money
but they take the gold


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
they give us money
but they take the gold
we duck and cover while
we do as we're told

they live forever
while we rot and fold
they feed us honey
but they shake the gold
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

better get it
while there's still a line
you better sweat it
cause you're laggin' behind

you try to spit it
but they put you on hold
they give you credit
but they bank the gold

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
they give us money
but they take the gold
invade a holy land
and make it explode

marchin in the street
can make you feel bold, but
they feed us promises
and drink the the gold
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Here's a PDF document someone made, outlining such a vision:

Proposed Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to Grant Legislative Powers to the Citizens

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
This country - ALL of its citizens, have been dominated by the IDEA that government knows BETTER than the people, when in fact the people should BE the government.

The answer to your question is in you own post.

I have disagreements with family members who vote "Yes" on each and every Texas constitutional amendment. These are college/university graduates I'm talking about! They don't study the issue, nor the wording. In fact, many of our amendments are worded in "opposites" so you really have to study each and every one individually and do sufficient research to make an informed vote.

The problem is, as you stated ... in the quote above ... which causes these people to COMPULSIVELY vote "yes" on every single item. They are sheeple, which is the majority of the voting public.

Not only that, they like to have the "I won" feeling ... even if it means the outcome is clearly detrimental to the state and/or its' citizens, or that an unscrupulous politician got PAID by big money to write that amendment solely for personal gain.

Furthermore, some people think voting "no" is a negative attitude. Most people lack spine and are ' "Yes" Men '.

I USED to think like you. I don't anymore though. Most people have neither the desire nor inclination to STUDY an issue.

Originally posted by PatriotsPride
I think its a great idea, but I am sure that it would be rigged up like
Harry Reeds election!!

I don't see how we have a chance at
turning this situation around,these corrupt politicians need to be
thrown out on their ASSESS!!!
Then we could get to work on rebuilding this great nation!

Couldn't be the GOP ran a Ephing LOONY lady... could it?

reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy


My GF's husband was a State Rep. and he spent ALL his free time while the legislature was in session reading bills. He was one of the few that actually read all the bills. I don't think it would be very practical to have the individual citizens do this when you can't even get them to go vote. That is talking about the state level. The federal level is a whole new consideration.

Something that certainly should be a consideration is the amount of legislation that is on the table. I bet a huge percent of it is nothing but trouble. Who would/could determine what is worthy of consideration and what isn't would be quite a task.

I wonder also about getting to vote on all issues presented.
I feel its bent how they can put themselves up to vote once every 4 years or so and then once voted in make all the rules? Surely there can be a way were we retain more say on bigger issues and policies.

I have no idea if it would be a good thing but its possible and I think people would see what groups they fell into more often causing possible local frictions.

reply to post by guidetube


Well that is already happening as we speak,,its called the internet,,,just no authority,,only,,comm spec. users too the nth deg.

ie ur kids texting,,wow,,was watching some thumbs today?? how do they do that???? lol old guy.

Originally posted by boncho
It's a nice thought but it would leave the country to be controlled by mob rule. There are groups that hate that have majorities, do you want them governing you?

Well, what we have right now surely is not working.

Majority Rule is better than Tyranny by a few rich Elite which is what we have right now.

It's working great if your in the top .1% that control everything for you and your cronies.