posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:22 PM
As I sit here thinking about how our representative government here in the United States predominantly represents those who can afford to pay for
their campaigns, something I assume is true in many other nations, I've been spending a few days trying to offer up a viable alternative. Not
wanting to take the enlightened despot path that always ends in blood and a poorly chosen successor, I've been genuinely wondering if technology and
mass literacy makes it possible to consider a much more direct democracy.
What I would propose would not be a system where any person could submit a bill directly and then everyone would be required to vote on it. Rather,
building on the separation of powers, I think we could include the best parts of a republic, of limited government, and have a much greater public
voice. I'm thinking in American terms, but will speak abstractly because I think the idea works anywhere with a relatively united citizenry, ease of
access to technology, and a democratic background.
There would have to be an established and inviolate bill of rights, clearly defining what rights people had that could not be voted away. Basic
freedoms such as speech, assembly, etc. I'll leave the details for discussion if people are interested.
But for most things beyond that, what I am considering if there would be elected advisory councils who would have the power to consider major issues,
and draft laws. I think it would be better if they included a mix of people who understood the particular subject area as well as public
representatives, and they would submit their programs for public approval.
Since unity is important, I'd argue 60% approval from the public should be required (with non-voting not counted for or against in the total
percentages) after a period of one month they get to review any proposed law, and this would be for all basic bills.
For bills designed to amend the basic rights, I would say that 80% approval be required, plus they cannot violate or restrict an existing right.
Such a system would incorporate the advisory capacity of the brightest minds and seek public input, but it would also prevent a small group of people
from being ever able to simply force through an unpopular policy against the public will.
While there would obviously need to be special consideration of foreign policy and war issues, which I'm leaving aside for the moment just to touch
on the concept, I wanted to see what ATSers thoughts about the idea of bringing more direct democracy into the mix.