In America and many countries the world over, we have adopted democratic principles, founded upon strong and mostly just ideas (Such as the
Constitution of the United States of America).
With that said, many of we the People feel that our tax dollars are being used in ways that are not ways we would want them to be used, and we do not
feel the decisions being made, either on state, or federal levels, are truly considerate of the well being and progress of the People, and hitherto,
the country. There is a sense that many of the representatives are inept or incapable of keeping the People's best interests in mind, some would say
it is due to lobbyists, some would say it is due to the supposed grandeur of their positions, still some would say it is due to ingrained systemic
issues of our political system, be it the two party dichotomy with it's manufacturing of people's "views" or the overt and growing arrogance of
political authority, as evidenced by the seemingly increasing rate of liberties being taken, true Constitutional violations that are being pandered to
the people as normal and acceptable.
Enough is enough.
Many of us, the People, seek solutions for the re-stabilization of our economy and our future.
Now, I don't claim this to be the solution, but I wanted to spark some discussion.
The idea of a direct democracy, or pure democracy.
This form of democracy, however, has been largely considered as impossibly ineffective due to various reasons, including motivation of the people,
organization, and overall effects on the economy and structured government.
Here goes nothing: imagine something like this:
A hybridization of a democratic republic with a direct democracy, keeping the federal level mostly as it is, BUT, a direct democracy would be enacted
for the state level and state decisions. This would require a certain level of lenience by the federal government, but they would still act in the
best interest of maintaining the stability of our union.
Now, more than ever, do we have ways of asserting a direct democracy successfully. Where they were seen to fail in the past, society is much different
now. We have means to communicate massive amounts of information, instantly. Nothing of the sort, in terms of efficiency and interconnectedness, has
existed as far as our technology or knowledge goes.
Through these means, I believe that we could hold official forums, both in person and official online discussion, where each state would allow the
postulation of ideas and public discussion upon, which would be easily accessible, especially the archived online discussions.
The ideas would be evaluated by everyone, possibly including some type of federally appointed council or group of state councils that would offer
their take on it, both logistically, budget wise etc, and subjectively. People would discuss, alter the proposal as seen fit, and eventually create
the official proposal and vote. If we were to allow for short voting intervals in terms of the official posting and voting of the proposal (say, each
new year's day, 10-20 are posted to vote upon, rather than every 2 or 4 to vote for a new representative and a few half assed measures), we could see
some rapid and major progress in the state level, and thus, the country. This would also, I believe, allow for a much more dynamic and adaptive
system.
This would put the control at the state level back in the hands of the People. It would be the people of the states choosing how their tax dollars are
mostly spent. I also believe that it would encourage people to get more involved, and actually learn more about the proposed legislation, rather than
simply vote for whatever. Who knows, maybe we could even enact some type of vetting process for eligibility to vote each year for each specific
legislation. The purpose is to ensure that the decision would be made by those that were most willing to truly make the best decision they could,
unlike the current "We know what's best for you, vote as we say, and no one gets hurt."
It could be as simple as requiring each person to go through a 30 minute registration process every year, including a few basic questions about the
proposed legislation. For example, if one couldn't get at least, say, 3/5 basic facts of the legislation right, then they would be ineligible, that
year, to vote on that specific proposal. They would still be able to gain eligibility on the rest of the proposals. It'd reduce the whole lemming
issue we have right now...throw around voters who are used as BS agenda pushers.
It seems like we're so used to the way things are (or have been made to believe we are) that we are literally afraid to question the current way
things are done, let alone (dare we) suggest a new way of doing things.
Anyway, as mentioned, these are just ideas, and seeing as how trends are, probably fleeting. I'd love to hear back from anyone interested in the
subject of political change. Obviously, if anything like this were to be enacted, it would have to be carefully constructed and planned out for
maximum transition smoothness and stability of the economy, and well being of the People.
Cheers
edit on 22-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)