Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

reply to post by peck420

It is not impossible to change it is very hard to change. Why? Because it is very hard to get the consensus required to change. With direct democracy, that is all void.

No it is not. Direct democracy is substituting representatives with actual people, thats all.
It would still take at least 75% of all voters to propose an amendment, and then 2/3 of all states ratifying it (with simple majority of voters in each state).

reply to post by daskakik


The only reason congress and corps have the power they do is due to voter ignorance and apathy.

Those that vote are bought off (the majority any ways) with baubles and empty promises. Those that don't vote are, for the most part, apathetic.

The single biggest weakness in the current Constitutional Republic is that the power, the people that hold everyone else accountable, THE VOTER no longer give a rats. That has allowed corruption to run rampant. Let the inmates run the prison, so to speak.

Changing to a direct democracy, in any form, will just given them the keys to the armoury in the basement.

reply to post by peck420


I already explained what I propose. It isn't what Maslo is talking about. Maslo is talking about a more direct democracy and I'm talking about a single element placed within the current system.

You point out that the people have to hold representatives accountable and that is the weakness. How have the people ever really had the power to do so? Voting them out? They don't care they got laws passed in favor of some corp and after leaving office they have a seat on the board of that corporation. He followed the rules so there is nothing the people can do.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Honor93
this is just an argumentative statement, nothing more.
in your version, IF my opinion wasn't the "majority" opinion, it wouldn't even get heard let alone action.
in your version, IF the majority opinion supports this legislation, i have -0- recourse.
in the Constitutional version, we both have recourse regardless the majority opinion.

you are simply imagining a "more direct way to deal with it" ... one, which is futile, if your opinion isn't part of the majority, as you yourself describe.

In both versions you have to accept whatever someone else settles upon. They are both constitutional so anything that isn't constitutional can be reviewed and thrown out by the judicial branch. Remember I said that all the checks in place would remain.

edit on 26-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

i disagree, i can and have acted to repeal legislation. i can and have influenced (verbally, never monetarily) my Rep to change their mind more than once. (not saying that 1 vote made a difference but maybe it did, who's to say?)
in your version, i have -0- recourse and this you do not deny so how is it the same ?

btw, regardless of how you present it, a government based on DD is directly in violation of Section 4, Article 4, US Constitution which reads ...

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

not only would such a measure conflict with the Constitution, it would potentially incite excessive domestic violence ... whether through coercion, corruption or any number of methods used to gain a vote.

sorry, i'm just not seeing the benefits you envision.
regardless of how we vote, the pool of candidates isn't helping matters any at all.

reply to post by daskakik

You can give the citizens the power to strike down laws without giving them the power to make constitutional amendments. As Honor93 pointed out in a previous post the current system has that covered.

wait just a moment here ... i never said anything about the crafting or proposing of amendments.

your direction is the veto power of the people, let's stick with that, ok?
the proposal and ratification of amendments has a procedure and is outlined in the Constitution.

which in and of itself provides another quandary ... if we are doing all the leg work and voting, why would we need Congress ??

Originally posted by Honor93
i disagree, i can and have acted to repeal legislation. i can and have influenced (verbally, never monetarily) my Rep to change their mind more than once. (not saying that 1 vote made a difference but maybe it did, who's to say?)
in your version, i have -0- recourse and this you do not deny so how is it the same ?

btw, regardless of how you present it, a government based on DD is directly in violation of Section 4, Article 4, US Constitution which reads ...

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

not only would such a measure conflict with the Constitution, it would potentially incite excessive domestic violence ... whether through coercion, corruption or any number of methods used to gain a vote.

sorry, i'm just not seeing the benefits you envision.
regardless of how we vote, the pool of candidates isn't helping matters any at all.

I don't see how this would deny states a Republican form of government. The SCOTUS would have to make the call on that one.

How many times have you asked your Rep to vote one way and he voted the other? Now your answer may be none and that could mean that you both think alike but the truth is that he can ignore your request so even if you don't like to think of it in that way it his choice and you have no choice but accept his will.

Originally posted by Honor93
wait just a moment here ... i never said anything about the crafting or proposing of amendments.

your direction is the veto power of the people, let's stick with that, ok?
the proposal and ratification of amendments has a procedure and is outlined in the Constitution.

which in and of itself provides another quandary ... if we are doing all the leg work and voting, why would we need Congress ??

Never said you did. The post I was responding to said the majority would change the constitution. I said that you pointed out that there is already a prosses and that that element of DD doesn't have to be implemented.

It is the same system with an extra check. Congress would keep doing what it has always done.

reply to post by Maslo

It would still take at least 75% of all voters to propose an amendment

this ^^^ would be a change because amendments are not proposed in such a manner ...

Article V ... The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

source
the States haven't called for a Convention to propose amendments for more than 50yrs.
and 75% of the popular vote wouldn't necessarily be enough to request a Convention.

reply to post by daskakik

How many times have you asked your Rep to vote one way and he voted the other? Now your answer may be none and that could mean that you both think alike but the truth is that he can ignore your request so even if you don't like to think of it in that way it his choice and you have no choice but accept his will.

i partially agree with this because in the immediate you are correct, but i still have multiple options for recourse. i can have my Rep re-called with good reason. i can participate in his/her defeat in the next election. i can challenge the law in court. i can also have it repealed. all of these options are mine whether or not i am part of the majority.

once the majority rules, all of those options are useless and devoid of power.

and no, i've never had a Rep agree with me on more than 2 issues at once.
(sometimes i think that's all part of the game anyway) you know ... 2 for you, 3 for me, 2 for you, 3 for me (that game)

pardon me for saying so but i think you are being awfully naive to think the majority (at any point in time) will vote in the BEST interests of ALL citizens when called to duty.

we can't even get a congressional majority vote or a unanimous decision to End the Fed and a vast majority of the public (citizens) desire that. (and have for years)

please don't get me wrong, i like the idea of an immediate veto option available to the citizenry for all Federal legislation (especially) ... however, i don't see such a rule conforming to veto power exclusively for the benefit of the public at large (i think that's stretching it just a bit)

Originally posted by Honor93
we can't even get a congressional majority vote or a unanimous decision to End the Fed and a vast majority of the public (citizens) desire that. (and have for years)

The courts are always an option. The majority can't overrule the constitution or the Supreme court. Actually everything you mentioned would still be available.

Your example is a good argument for Maslo's stance. In my proposal, as well as the current system, the people wouldn't be able to do away with the Fed either.

As for Best interest the truth is that most people wouldn't bother with the majority of laws. Since what I propose is a popular check then only laws that raise a serious concern would be contested. The bailouts, obamacare, NAFTA would have been laws that could have been contested. Notice how these all seem to benefit a select few? I think these would have gotten the populace to act.

reply to post by daskakik

actually, the populace did act on all of those [NAFTA, OPEC, bailouts (even before these recent ones), Obamacare, NATO, UN, all kinds of legislation] ... just not as they should have ... imo, due to the anemic educational condition another poster mentioned.

ya know, it might be desirable now because so many things have passed which a citizen majority seem to disapprove, but are we really considering all the consequences ??

most ppl know that it's estimated/anticipated that by 2015 (i think), immigrants will outnumber natural born citizens ... will that population become the "majority" that natural citizens will have to schmooze to get anything accomplished?

reply to post by jcord


I fully agree with you. To vote competently, this would be a full time job.

However the people we hired don't vote competently either.

reply to post by Honor93


They didn't act as they should have or maybe they did but there was a greater pressure from other players. That is why I think a more direct form would have been better. I don't see any negative consequences at least no worse than the current system.

I don't understand the "schmooze" comment. Politicians already pander to the majority. If immigrants make up the majority then the answer is yes even if things remain the same.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

They didn't act as they should have or maybe they did but there was a greater pressure from other players. That is why I think a more direct form would have been better. I don't see any negative consequences at least no worse than the current system.

I don't understand the "schmooze" comment. Politicians already pander to the majority. If immigrants make up the majority then the answer is yes even if things remain the same.

correction, politicians pander to the money not the majority.
if it were the majority in any decision, we wouldn't be in this current situation.

the schmooze is regarding the majority that has veto power (if provided) ... i just see a complete bottle-neck even worse than we have now. presently, we have more immigrants sitting in positions of power than ever in the history of this country. it would be foolish at best to think a majority vote could be achieved without some level of coercion and that would be a very bad thing for the process as a whole.

example -- and yes it's a bad one but relevant ... let's just say for fun ...
citizen veto initiative passes.
a new Constitutional amendment is presented and the proposal is to guarantee 1st amendment protections for all religious expressions of those actively practicing Shari'a Law in all states and territories. (example only)

which majority rules ??
the ones who actually vote, the % of total eligible to vote and what about absentee voters?
to me, the "majority" just seems too ambiguous.

another example ... equally bad
citizen veto passes.
blah, blah & it proposes a Congressional declaration of war ... does the veto power still apply?
do the active soldiers have an equal voice w/o reprimand?
what if the majority turnout are immigrants and the veto fails? ... would that inspire insurrection?
and lastly, would those who dissent get a refund?

edit to add: sorry, i missed this entirely ...

the people wouldn't be able to do away with the Fed either.

... and why not? i don't follow what you're saying there. legislation could be presented in our current system (not that 2/3 of both Houses would, but that's another story) to end the fed but if it were, are you saying the ppl couldn't veto it ?
not that we'd want to mind you but exactly what are you saying there?

Originally posted by Honor93
correction, politicians pander to the money not the majority.
if it were the majority in any decision, we wouldn't be in this current situation.

OK but just another reason to have the people check the politicians so that no matter how much money they are offered to pass laws the people can stop them.

the schmooze is regarding the majority that has veto power (if provided) ... i just see a complete bottle-neck even worse than we have now. presently, we have more immigrants sitting in positions of power than ever in the history of this country. it would be foolish at best to think a majority vote could be achieved without some level of coercion and that would be a very bad thing for the process as a whole.

You make it sound as if immigrants all think the same. First off how do you schmooze 200 million people? Second, immigrants who are able to vote, actually citizens, have a vested interest in the country. Those with work permits and green cards don't get to vote.

example -- and yes it's a bad one but relevant ... let's just say for fun ...
citizen veto initiative passes.
a new Constitutional amendment is presented and the proposal is to guarantee 1st amendment protections for all religious expressions of those actively practicing Shari'a Law in all states and territories. (example only)

which majority rules ??
the ones who actually vote, the % of total eligible to vote and what about absentee voters?
to me, the "majority" just seems too ambiguous.

another example ... equally bad
citizen veto passes.
blah, blah & it proposes a Congressional declaration of war ... does the veto power still apply?
do the active soldiers have an equal voice w/o reprimand?
what if the majority turnout are immigrants and the veto fails? ... would that inspire insurrection?
and lastly, would those who dissent get a refund?

I'm sure that if implemented declaration of war would be exempt from popular veto. Don't know much about Sharia Law but if it infinges on a persons rights then it is unconstitutional from the start and would probably be forced to adapt and as such would already be protected by the constitution.

Quorum would be sorted out if it ever came to pass.

What would you say if I told you that there is a safe,ready to go system, already out there ?
I know there is and I have some info on it that I will gladly share with you.
The system is constructed in a verifiable mode that allows you to cast your vote safely and anonimously.
It begins at home in your voting district and carries on from there until you are taking votes nationally and internationally.That way new political ideas will have to be developed before they can be voted on,nonsense does not stand a chance. There will be forums where you can discuss ideas to your hearts content.These forums are the proving ground,once you have x amount of support for an idea in the forum, it will by default appear on the official voting list of that voting district.
This will be a one direction system, that only allows you to cast your vote on the listed subjects.The forums can use the same software sytem as the official register, but allow for discussion, they will filter out irrelevant themes and poeple who wish to block the system.
It makes sense to carry on with reperesentation, with one fundamental difference,
the reperesentatives will have to be 100% responsable to the electorate,their mandate will be to discuss agendas in puplic and implement decisions as true representatives of the poeple. If they cannot do so, they must step down and allow others to take their place.
Bureucratic agencies could be replaced by trust companies, whose job will be to implement legislation in an absolutely fair and transparent manner,allowing anyone interested to research the decisions taken.If proven biased, they will need to be recalled and the responsable trust officials will have to take full responsability.Finacial loss and loss of freedom should combine to keep them honest.
Priorities could be voted on quickly,other not so pressing matters could have a longer voting time, allowing you a time span of possibly two months before a vote is closed. This allows time for discussion in the forums and the media and is much more flexible then having to take a vote on one particular day.
The idea is to establish the system in all `` democratic `` countries of the world, allowing modern democracy for all and action in global matters. Non democratic countries will certainly soon fail and become democratic.
Law making does not need to be complicated, it has only become so due to vested interests.
Laws passed on a local level need to be respected, even if they are not what the majority of a country or a state will choose.This will give minorities a chance to try things their way.
There is much more, but I do not wish to bore you.
Personally, I am sure it will work, although it will take time to tune the process,mistakes will be made but it will give the individual a chance to take responsability and learn in the process.
In the long run it will become accepted by all ,as the only way to be.

reply to post by daskakik

sorry for the misinterpretation ... to me, all immigrants, are immigrants first ... they can be categorized further but not necessary for this discussion.
you said ...

Those with work permits and green cards don't get to vote.

and while that's what the paperwork says, reality has proven otherwise.

as for a "vested interest", i thought the question regarding a failed veto vote exemplified that ... of course they have a vested interest (and usually in more than one country), why would you assume otherwise ??
notice, i didn't even specify legal vs illegal so let's not go down that road, k?

now see, i would think the power of veto would be most useful when such a declaration was made. if you're gonna have the power, why restrict it when it could have the greatest effect ??

ok, skip the shari'a example ... i only used it because it's an ongoing discussion in several legislatures.
and no, the practices are not Constitutionally compatible and an amendment would be necessary because it does not conform, period.

i would think the issue of quorum would be a well-established protocol seeing as how the whole concept is based on it ... isn't that kinda like placing the cart before the horses?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

sorry for the misinterpretation ... to me, all immigrants, are immigrants first ... they can be categorized further but not necessary for this discussion.
you said ...

Those with work permits and green cards don't get to vote.

and while that's what the paperwork says, reality has proven otherwise.

as for a "vested interest", i thought the question regarding a failed veto vote exemplified that ... of course they have a vested interest (and usually in more than one country), why would you assume otherwise ??
notice, i didn't even specify legal vs illegal so let's not go down that road, k?

now see, i would think the power of veto would be most useful when such a declaration was made. if you're gonna have the power, why restrict it when it could have the greatest effect ??

ok, skip the shari'a example ... i only used it because it's an ongoing discussion in several legislatures.
and no, the practices are not Constitutionally compatible and an amendment would be necessary because it does not conform, period.

i would think the issue of quorum would be a well-established protocol seeing as how the whole concept is based on it ... isn't that kinda like placing the cart before the horses?

As a son and friend of many naturalized immigrants I can tell you that they take the health of the US very seriously and the children of immigrants which are being counted amongst the "immigrant" numbers are anything but. Many don't even speak their parents language and they sure as hell are glad when they get back stateside after visiting the native land. So I'm not assuming anything I know first hand.

If it happens then the government will decide on the quorum. Me throwing out numbers makes no difference. Thinking that whatever I type into this site will make it into the system is like putting the horses on the cart.

Having read most of the comments, I'd be interested to know what the members of ATS who haven't voiced their opinion in this thread think. Can we set up a poll? Of course the format of the question is important, so first we have to decide the question. Maybe we could set up a poll?

reply to post by daskakik

As a son and friend of many naturalized immigrants I can tell you that they take the health of the US very seriously and the children of immigrants which are being counted amongst the "immigrant" numbers are anything but. Many don't even speak their parents language and they sure as hell are glad when they get back stateside after visiting the native land. So I'm not assuming anything I know first hand.

If it happens then the government will decide on the quorum. Me throwing out numbers makes no difference. Thinking that whatever I type into this site will make it into the system is like putting the horses on the cart.

come on now ... no point in adding semantics to the subject.
as an ethnically Irish parent to a native American Indian who is also directly related to many naturalized immigrants, that point is really irrelevant.

what i am suggesting is comparable to the events of WWII and the internment camps here in the US. (an event i care to never repeat if at all possible)

the simple fact is ... when you have close family who reside abroad, you naturally have a vested interest in what happens in their country (tis only natural) ... for the sake of argument, let's use Russia or Iran as examples because of current events.
[luckily for me, the majority of my family members do not live abroad yet, but i know many who do]

either or is fine by me (we have immigrants from both countries here) ... so, getting back to the question ...
Congress declares war (with one of those countries), a veto vote is taken and defeated but the majority of participating voters are in fact, immigrants ... does/could this potentially create an unnecessary response from govt or citizens as we've experienced in the past ??

if it were my origin country with whom the US intended to engage, i would be inclined to act in the best interest of my family, first (regardless of location) ... wouldn't most ??

given past actions regarding the Japanese, i would be extremely concerned for all my citizen friends who might be at risk of such a response. and equally concerned that the backlash would be worse. (based on past experiences)

at a time when a majority of ppl are randomly lashing out at the first available target (especially when they are refused something they desire - in this case the veto), it behooves me to consider that these are issues to be resolved "later". understand??

when war is declared ... the health of your host country seldom takes precedence over family.
[see civil war for more insight to the effects upon host regions let alone alternate countries]

please don't misunderstand, i am more in favor of NO historical repeats vs an exacerbation of hostilities based on ancient fears or misinterpreted provocations. (as we've done before)

if i remember correctly, wasn't there a recent, Russian spy ring arrested in the US ??
link
now, given that these ppl were active, legal, naturalized, Americans (in other words, veto voters) ... what if their veto failure directly incited insurrection ?? (as asked originally)

on the flip side, should these citizens (before their arrest) be 'rounded-up' in advance of such a congressional declaration out of the simple fear they may be who they turned out to be in the long run ??
and, if a veto vote is to take place, do they lose their right to vote because of "vested-interests" ??

please forgive me, i'm just not seeing much clarity in this proposal so far, especially lacking a defined quorum.

for the record, a proposal such as this which would have to be presented as an Amendment, can not be considered without such specifics and numbers for that matter.

if you are foolish enough to think that the inhabitants of this country will stand idly by while nonsense like Pelosi presented with Obamacare, you'd be seriously mistaken.
NO MORE -- "well, you'll have to pass it to know what's in it" BS