Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

reply to post by Honor93


First off immigrants don't come from a single nation. If the US wanted to attack Honduras there aren't enough Honduran immigrants to sway the vote. There would probably be more votes against it from Americans who think the US should stop war mongering. Honestly if something like this was implemented I see declerations of war being exempt from popular veto, you know national security and what not, so the whole thing is probably moot.

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.

Sure but whatever numbers I come up with will probably not be the ones that the government would implement but, just to put something out there, either house only needs simple majority to "do business" meaning that if laws can be passesd with only 51% of the peoples representatives present then 51% of the people should be good enough as well.

reply to post by daskakik

never said anything about where the immigrants come from except those who may be from the country we intend to engage [please stop with the straw-man, misdirections and dismissals]
for you to dismiss them because they may be a minority amount is offensive to say the least.

i don't care if only 2 Americans originate from the intended invasion location, they are IMPORTANT as they are citizens and their vote/opinion should not be dismissed.

as for National Security, which of the last 10 conflicts have truly evolved out of US national security ?? -0-

back to the vote, if it is not applicable at the most crucial time, why bother?
that's going right back to .... he who grants the right can take it away ... no thanks.

as for being moot, i disagree ... our founding fathers discussed, at great length, such issues and future complications and possibilities ... see the Federalist papers for examples.

why do you keep separating the ppl From the govt? ... we are one.

look, you were the one who said this proposal has been hashed and re-hashed and thoroughly worked-out, not me. obviously, by your own obfuscations, it has not.

and no, 51% of the peoples is not a 2/3 quorum of anything.
btw, amendments are NOT passed with 51% of anything, nice try though.

again, without specifics, this has become a pointless conversation but thanks anyway.

reply to post by Honor93

I thought that your point was that they would veto a declaration of war because they have family in the country that is going to be invaded. I was pointing that even if immigrants are a majority that majority becomes a minority when you start breaking them down by place of origin.

I'm sure that more than a couple americans were against the invasions during the last ten years because they had family there. There opinions were dismissed.

National security is what they would probably claim. That is what makes our dialog moot. They would never implement it without making declarations of war exempt.

look, you were the one who said this proposal has been hashed and re-hashed and thoroughly worked-out, not me. obviously, by your own obfuscations, it has not.

I stopped talking about the power to make amendments about 2 pages ago. I specifically said laws are passed by congress and their quorum is 51%. That is what the founding fathers decided on.

It has been worked out but there would be adjustments made by those implimenting it. How am I supposed to know what those changes would be? You asking me about them is ridiculous. As if I have any say in that process.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

I thought that your point was that they would veto a declaration of war because they have family in the country that is going to be invaded. I was pointing that even if immigrants are a majority that majority becomes a minority when you start breaking them down by place of origin.

I'm sure that more than a couple americans were against the invasions during the last ten years because they had family there. There opinions were dismissed.

National security is what they would probably claim. That is what makes our dialog moot. They would never implement it without making declarations of war exempt.

look, you were the one who said this proposal has been hashed and re-hashed and thoroughly worked-out, not me. obviously, by your own obfuscations, it has not.

I stopped talking about the power to make amendments about 2 pages ago. I specifically said laws are passed by congress and their quorum is 51%. That is what the founding fathers decided on.

It has been worked out but there would be adjustments made by those implimenting it. How am I supposed to know what those changes would be? You asking me about them is ridiculous. As if I have any say in that process.

edit on 27-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

this proposal we are discussing can ONLY be presented as a Constitutional amendment ... so, how do you stop discussing that aspect?

during the last 10 conflicts, the entirety of the population against them was ignored ... how does your proposal change that ??
^^^^ that is my point.

random changes that do not change the dynamic are useless at best.
and, that is what this amounts to, don't you see that ??

this could potentially create more resentment, less loyalty and mass confusion ... how does any of that help?

I specifically said laws are passed by congress and their quorum is 51%. That is what the founding fathers decided on.

there you go confusing the issue again. we are not discussing a new "law", we are discussing an amendment. please stop confusing the two processes, they are not the same.
and, NO amendment is passed or ratified with a 51% vote.
although, some amendments are enforced without being properly ratified ... perhaps we should start by fixing those ??

Originally posted by Honor93
this proposal we are discussing can ONLY be presented as a Constitutional amendment ... so, how do you stop discussing that aspect?

I stopped discussing the inclusion of the direct democracy element to make constitutional amendments.

during the last 10 conflicts, the entirety of the population against them was ignored ... how does your proposal change that ??

It doesn't because it would probably not be implemented unless they can exclude declerations of war. That is my point.

there you go confusing the issue again. we are not discussing a new "law", we are discussing an amendment. please stop confusing the two processes, they are not the same.
and, NO amendment is passed or ratified with a 51% vote.

I'm not confusing anything. I never said this would be implemented by law. I said that if only 51% of the peoples representatives present meets quorum to pass a law then that same amount should probably be the amount needed to meet quorum for a popular veto of a law.

Of course that is not up to me and I have no idea what a final implementation would look like.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Honor93
this proposal we are discussing can ONLY be presented as a Constitutional amendment ... so, how do you stop discussing that aspect?

I stopped discussing the inclusion of the direct democracy element to make constitutional amendments.

but that's the point, direct democracy is already part of the amendment process (ratification)
and, the veto vote itself should reflect a much greater majority than 51%.

back to what i said in the beginning, if declarations of war are excluded, what's the point?
such a declaration has profound effects on every aspect of our existence ... why should it be excluded?

see, this is where you lose me entirely ... if it's an amendment, why wouldn't you have a say in its final draft ?? if such a proposal passes Congress, it still has to be ratified and if you're a citizen, you would/should have a say.

Originally posted by Honor93
but that's the point, direct democracy is already part of the amendment process (ratification)
and, the veto vote itself should reflect a much greater majority than 51%.

I know, that is why I stopped talking about it because the amendment process already is DD and people are comfortable with the way it is implemented so there was no point in going on about it.

I have already said that any number that I post as to the veto vote is meaningless. If it ever came to pass the number could be anything.

51% is what constitutes quorum in congress and 51% is needed to pass a law so technically 26.01% is all that is needed to pass a law through congress. The Swiss must have simple majority of the popular vote and have no quorum to veto a law. At least from what I have read.

back to what i said in the beginning, if declarations of war are excluded, what's the point?
such a declaration has profound effects on every aspect of our existence ... why should it be excluded?

Accepting the war exclusion would be the bargaining chip for getting it passed. I doubt that any such amendment would pass congress without it.

see, this is where you lose me entirely ... if it's an amendment, why wouldn't you have a say in its final draft ?? if such a proposal passes Congress, it still has to be ratified and if you're a citizen, you would/should have a say.

All one can do is vote yes or no so technically there really isn't any say in the details. That is my point.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Honor93
but that's the point, direct democracy is already part of the amendment process (ratification)
and, the veto vote itself should reflect a much greater majority than 51%.

I know, that is why I stopped talking about it because the amendment process already is DD and people are comfortable with the way it is implemented so there was no point in going on about it.

I have already said that any number that I post as to the veto vote is meaningless. If it ever came to pass the number could be anything.

51% is what constitutes quorum in congress and 51% is needed to pass a law so technically 26.01% is all that is needed to pass a law through congress. The Swiss must have simple majority of the popular vote and have no quorum to veto a law. At least from what I have read.

back to what i said in the beginning, if declarations of war are excluded, what's the point?
such a declaration has profound effects on every aspect of our existence ... why should it be excluded?

Accepting the war exclusion would be the bargaining chip for getting it passed. I doubt that any such amendment would pass congress without it.

see, this is where you lose me entirely ... if it's an amendment, why wouldn't you have a say in its final draft ?? if such a proposal passes Congress, it still has to be ratified and if you're a citizen, you would/should have a say.

All one can do is vote yes or no so technically there really isn't any say in the details. That is my point.

wow, i'm beginning to think you need to stop talking about this until there IS something to talk about. you even refuse to discuss "details" ... ie. majority percentage
but ... this detail is necessary for the proposal to become a presentable Bill.

It passing or not is irrelevant to the details of the proposal.
you claim ~~ details can be worked out later and i disagree.

you insist it's necessary but not at our most vital crossroads, i disagree.

you keep referring to a quorum and i wonder if you even know what that word signifies?
the 51% of votes is a majority, not a quorum.
[a quorum is when a majority of members are present to conduct business]

barring any empty seats a Senate quorum is 51 senators present ... not 51% of a vote.
in the House, it's 218 ... again, that's members present to conduct business.

now that we have some of the vocabulary sorted out, where do you get that crazy math from above?

basically, Bills pass with a 51% vote from each of the houses, how do you get

so technically 26.01% is all that is needed to pass a law through congress.

and, if the POTUS issues a veto, congress can over-ride it with a 2/3 majority in each house.

when the Swiss vote, they're finished before Texas gets started.
sorry, but there's just no comparison there and yes the numbers count.
try to keep in mind that a unanimous Swiss vote still isn't enough for a majority in Texas.

personally, i would never accept the proposal with such an exclusion and i seriously doubt many others would either.
when a Bill is what the ppl desire, no "bargaining chip" should be necessary.

i understand a vote is yes or no.
i wasn't referring to a vote, i am referring to the details of the proposal (of which i'm less convinced even exists)
there are several ways to craft and present a Bill to congress and surprisingly public input (well, lobbyists these days) is usually part of the process.

reply to post by Honor93


I don't understand why you have such a fixation with details. Neither of us is going to determain what details get into or are left out of any amendment that gets passed by congress so why get hung up on it.

The whole quorum thing started when you asked:

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.

Quorum is the minimum number present needed to take a vote. The Constitution calls for a simple majority. To pass a law a majority of 51% of quorum is needed so 51% of the 51% present is 26.01% which simply means that 26.01% of the peoples representative vote is needed to pass a law. Just a tidbit of information.

According to wiki 10,000 amendments have been proposed since 1798. 27 were passed. You can push for the inclusion of the veto for war declerations but it probably has a snowball's chance in hell. I say something is better than nothing.

Why would I stop talking about direct democracy on a thread which was created to talk about it?

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

I don't understand why you have such a fixation with details. Neither of us is going to determain what details get into or are left out of any amendment that gets passed by congress so why get hung up on it.

The whole quorum thing started when you asked:

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.

Quorum is the minimum number present needed to take a vote. The Constitution calls for a simple majority. To pass a law a majority of 51% of quorum is needed so 51% of the 51% present is 26.01% which simply means that 26.01% of the peoples representative vote is needed to pass a law. Just a tidbit of information.

According to wiki 10,000 amendments have been proposed since 1798. 27 were passed. You can push for the inclusion of the veto for war declerations but it probably has a snowball's chance in hell. I say something is better than nothing.

Why would I stop talking about direct democracy on a thread which was created to talk about it?

edit on 28-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

boy are you confused. details matter and yes, i could have a part in drafting the Bill.
show's what you know.

a quorum of persons present is not the same or equivalent to a 51% voting majority of BOTH houses.
it's actually a difference of 3 votes and that can make a difference, even at the minimum or quorum.

a tidbit for you ... quorum call is often used as a delay tactic, nothing more.
i would be happier if it were a roll-call vote with a minimum presence and participation of 2/3 of each House.

i guess this is the phrase that i'm kinda hung up on

26.01% which simply means that 26.01% of the peoples representative vote is needed to pass a law.

when you say "the ppls representative vote" i envision House members only as they are the ppls reps.
the Senate (is supposed to) represent the States and the interest of the State
(not directly the ppl in it)

now, 26.01% of Congress, i can agree with (although i've always thought it should be more) ... but as you stated it, i read 51% of House (218 quorum)

the "something is better than nothing" compromise is exactly what got us here, why continue down the wrong path?
if the CIC of the military is OUR employee (potus), why shouldn't the ppl have such a vote?

besides, when the Constitution was crafted and the majority/quorum established, there weren't an entire 100 persons in both Houses ... and 26% of 93 is a larger majority than 26% of 535.
That should change before anything else does.

Originally posted by Honor93
boy are you confused. details matter

Discussing details with a stranger on the internet doesn't matter.

and yes, i could have a part in drafting the Bill.
show's what you know.

That is why I emphesized passed. Chances are that anything you take part of in drafting will not pass.

i guess this is the phrase that i'm kinda hung up on

26.01% which simply means that 26.01% of the peoples representative vote is needed to pass a law.

when you say "the ppls representative vote" i envision House members only as they are the ppls reps.
the Senate (is supposed to) represent the States and the interest of the State
(not directly the ppl in it)

OK but government in general is supposed to be working for the people even if focused on different levels.

the "something is better than nothing" compromise is exactly what got us here, why continue down the wrong path?
if the CIC of the military is OUR employee (potus), why shouldn't the ppl have such a vote?

I agree but negotiations are just that. That is the whole point of politics.

besides, when the Constitution was crafted and the majority/quorum established, there weren't an entire 100 persons in both Houses ... and 26% of 93 is a larger majority than 26% of 535.
That should change before anything else does.

I don't understand your point 26% of 93 is 24.18 and 26% of 535 is 139.1. In both cases it's the same proportion of the whole.

reply to post by daskakik

what difference does it make if it's 3am in a Denny's or Perkins or online?
does that somehow invalidate the conversation in your mind?

did you know some of the best ideas come from random conversation?
for all i care, we could be sitting next to each other in a 24hr laundry house ... it doesn't invalidate the topic, the conversation or the details necessary to apply the concept.

chances are if i do something, something will happen.
a Bill cannot be voted on until it is crafted and presented. why jump the line?
i suppose experience in such matters doesn't hold any value for you either, eh?

actually, State governments are to work for the people in each State.
the Federal government is to work for the benefit of the country ... all the States and all the people.

when talking on the Federal level (as we are), the purpose of each House is relevant.
that's where so many get frustrated, they want to paint the whole system with the same brush and just as you cannot do that with a culture, race or region, you cannot paint the US govt with one brush either.

yes, proportionately 26% is always 26% ... but using that logic in this representation is akin to saying there are only a few ppl who want to kill Americans, a measly 1%
~ even though that "few" is realistically one million+ individuals ~
(after all, it's only 1% of a population)

times have changed and so should the ground rules.
it is not fair to any American to expand the field of play 4 times over and not adapt the rules of cooperation.

as for negotiating ... ...
WHAT is being negotiated ????
spending TAX DOLLARS, passing legislation against the wishes of the ppl, enforcing amendments that were never properly ratified, corralling citizens while exercising their rights, authorizing the killing of innocents in foreign countries when we are not at war, i could go on but i'm pretty sure you get my point.
IF this ^^^^^ is politics, that's exactly why we can do better without.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

what difference does it make if it's 3am in a Denny's or Perkins or online?
does that somehow invalidate the conversation in your mind?

did you know some of the best ideas come from random conversation?
for all i care, we could be sitting next to each other in a 24hr laundry house ... it doesn't invalidate the topic, the conversation or the details necessary to apply the concept.

Not coming to an agreement on whether minimum voter turnout (quorum) should be 25%, 51%, 66% or 75% or there being no minimum turnout (quorum) also doesn't invalidate the topic.

We are not in a position to apply the concept. We are only in a position to write up a proposal. I don't care about the details because I don't have enough control over what would or wouldn't pass, so to me, that makes it an exersice in futility. I already said 51% should suffice. You disagree. Then plug in whatever number you want. Obviously I have no control in what you would draft. Perfect example of why discussing details means nothing.

chances are if i do something, something will happen.
a Bill cannot be voted on until it is crafted and presented. why jump the line?
i suppose experience in such matters doesn't hold any value for you either, eh?

Wrong, statistically you would have almost no chance of getting a bill passed and I can assure you that if you include a war declaration veto it has 0% chance.

yes, proportionately 26% is always 26% ... but using that logic in this representation is akin to saying there are only a few ppl who want to kill Americans, a measly 1%

I asked for you to clear your point up. You said 26% of 93 was a larger majority than 26% of 535. Now you seem to be saying the opposite so either your original statement was in error or this one is.

reply to post by daskakik

so, you're intentionally "not coming to an agreement" ... ok.
and, as a taxpaying American citizen, it befuddles me every time a peer (?) devalues their own ability to effect change in this wonderful country.
you keep believe'n it

statistics do NOT define my ability or the abilities of the next person. try again.

and yes, we disagree that your vacillation between 51% (which really means 26.01% - ???) is any kind of useable suggestion. 51% is just that, not 26.01% as you infer.

personally, i'd prefer a stronger percentage to over-rule Congress. 2/3 is reasonable.
whatever number used to represent it is debatable ... let's say 65% (for a round number) of registered voters.

but that takes me back to ... what happens if "quorum" (in this case 65% of voters) don't respond ??
should Presidential veto apply to the citizen vote ??

these are all valid discussion points and without them, there is no proposal BY THE PEOPLE.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

so, you're intentionally "not coming to an agreement" ... ok.
and, as a taxpaying American citizen, it befuddles me every time a peer (?) devalues their own ability to effect change in this wonderful country.
you keep believe'n it

I'm intentionally "not coming to an agreement" because I truly disagree. I just can't get on board with your proposal. Doesn't mean I can't get behind someone elses or write up my own.

statistics do NOT define my ability or the abilities of the next person. try again.

They may not define but they indicate. 10,000 proposals have been made 27 have passed that means that while there is a chance it's 99.73% statistically probable that you're proposal would not pass.

and yes, we disagree that your vacillation between 51% (which really means 26.01% - ???) is any kind of useable suggestion. 51% is just that, not 26.01% as you infer.

51% of the voters must participate for the vote to count (quorum). Of the 51% participating a simple majority (51%) decides. 51% of 51% is 26.01%. That means that that is the minimum percent of votes needed to pass a law. This is how congress is run. It is rather simple.

So if 51 senators are present, meeting quorum, and they vote on a law and 27 vote to pass it then 27% was needed to pass that law. Before you say that is not the way it works you may want to check out United States v. Ballin

personally, i'd prefer a stronger percentage to over-rule Congress. 2/3 is reasonable.
whatever number used to represent it is debatable ... let's say 65% (for a round number) of registered voters.

but that takes me back to ... what happens if "quorum" (in this case 65% of voters) don't respond ??
should Presidential veto apply to the citizen vote ??

Interesting note from the US Masons Manual included in the link above:

"A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote. To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority."

In any case if quorum is not met then the vote is null and the law stands. That is the whole point of the quorum.

Presidential veto should not apply. The whole point is getting the power out of the hands of the few. Letting one person have the last word would defeat the purpose.

these are all valid discussion points and without them, there is no proposal BY THE PEOPLE.

You don't need to hash out details with me to draft your proposal. In fact it seems that you don't want to include my details in your proposal so what difference does it make what those may be.