Voting online for more control of government, page 1

Voting online for more control of government, page

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 26-8-2012 @ 08:37 AM by jiggerj

We always talk about how citizens need to have more say on government policies. Wouldn't it be nice to have a website where citizens can post their concerns for people to vote on, whereby if those in government are truly concerned about public opinion they can check the website to see what the majority of people really want, or don't want.

Off the top of my head I can see someone asking if Amish dairy farmers should have the right to sell unprocessed milk. Feds shut down Amish raw milk sales

How about voting on whether we should enter into a war or even supply arms to other nations? Shouldn't we have a direct say on such things?

On a site such as this the IP address of every computer should be counted so that no one can vote a thousand times on a topic. This would give the government a clear picture of how the people truly feel. I also know that there are ways to prevent people voting from other countries. And each country should have its own section.

Does anyone know if a site like this already exists? If so, please post a link.
If not, SOMEBODY MAKE ONE!

edit on 8/26/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 08:41 AM by Hefficide

reply to post by jiggerj

Technically many, if not most, of the sites you visit do this for you already - to one degree or another. If you've ever answered a pop-up polling question, used a search engine, liked something on Facebook... or even surfed ATS... your preferences, predispositions, and opinions ( sometimes ) went into data pools which are then used to compile public opinion polls and demographic specific research studies.

So... in a small way, every time you click your mouse, you're sort of voting.

~Heff

( Oh, and Google a bit... you'll find quite a few sites where they offer surveys and offer chances to vote on topics. )

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 08:46 AM by Neocrusader

It's a beginning

www.globaldemocracy.com...

As far as I know no-one in power is paying much attention yet.
But it's a start, and the more that get involved, hopefully, the more they will pay attention

But don't hold your breath

Trying to link to their vid, but struggling on my current device/connection
But check out president of the world on you tube

Edit - best I can do at the moment - if someone would be so kind as to imbed ......mucho gracias
www.google.co.uk... g=AFQjCNF5U_f6aVHWiAcf_AMAtyNSS-

And a ats thread regarding it ( and already has the vid embedded lol )www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 26-8-2012 by Neocrusader because: Added

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 08:51 AM by HamrHeed

Bro.. I commend you for the positive hopes/thoughts for us regular peons but........ it will never happen. Peace isn't good for business apparently

If we had control of anything, the welfare queens would have been gone 1900 and few years ago. It's not like they're going to just say "ok, the people know whats best"
Try running for office if you believe that enough

edit on 26-8-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 09:03 AM by IsThisThingBugged

reply to post by jiggerj

Like a 21st century version of Athens democracy? Where every citizen (their definition of citizen was different though) has a vote on all issues. Instead of a republic like we have.

In theory I like the idea, but after seeing how swept up and mindless many were with the Obama idol worship in 2008.... I dont know.

I'd be all for direct democracy, maybe a computer system in our homes solely for voting, to avoid viruses and drive corruption. BUT we would have to change the definition of who votes. Right now almost half of all Americans receive government welfare of some kind... Could they not just vote to expand their benefits like our current politicians vote to expand their pocketbooks?

I would only be okay with direct democracy with some limitations. Like you can't be receiving government welfare at the time of the vote or something. That ensures you have a vested stake in the outcome. (wouldn't be a lifetime ban or anything, get off the government dole and your eligible for the next vote)

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 09:08 AM by jiggerj

Originally posted by HamrHeed
If we had control of anything, the welfare queens would have been gone 1900 and few years ago. It's not like they're going to just say "ok, the people know whats best"

In a society where voting occurs, does it really matter whether or not the people know what's best? If the majority voted to have pink balloons attached to every parking meter on Tuesdays, shouldn't this policy be put into practice?

edit on 8/26/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 09:21 AM by IsThisThingBugged

reply to post by jiggerj

“An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy…” -Jefferson.

Let's remember when our democracy was created only free, property-owning men were allowed to vote. Now obviously I'm not advocating we stop women and minorities from voting BUT if we restrict felons from voting why can people sit at home on welfare and then go vote for more welfare?... (I'm not comparing welfare receiptance to felons, just pointing out we can legally restrict voting)

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 09:30 AM by Neocrusader

reply to post by jiggerj

Not really
In order for us to make an informed decision, we first need the information, which we all know we don't get
Our information is restricted, censored and polluted in order to support our govs agenda

An example

Genetically modified foods
Now I'm fully against GM foods - considering the information and data we have,
But therein lays the problem
It's evident we don't have all the information
What if we do indeed need to be developing GM foods - but they can't tell us why, so as not to scare us,panic us or indeed start a collapse

Ok maybe a bad example .........hmmmm maybe the economy
Now if we all knew how bad it was, many would withdraw all their bank accounts, some wouldn't pay bills/taxes, stock markets would go nuts ect ect and turn a bad situation into a disaster

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 09:34 AM by HamrHeed

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by HamrHeed
If we had control of anything, the welfare queens would have been gone 1900 and few years ago. It's not like they're going to just say "ok, the people know whats best"

In a society where voting occurs, does it really matter whether or not the people know what's best? If the majority voted to have pink balloons attached to every parking meter on Tuesdays, shouldn't this policy be put into practice?
edit on 8/26/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

True, we should all just roll over and die after we give 90% of our pay to the gov't. And people who don't accept the "reality" of slavery should just be quiet and roll stone.
This ain't the dark ages or ancient egypt.
Too many idiots in this society beg for slavery and vote to put us in chains

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 09:56 AM by CynicalDrivel

reply to post by Neocrusader

It's beginning? We've been following UN mandates from at least the 90s, if not earlier.

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 09:59 AM by jiggerj

Originally posted by Neocrusader
reply to post by jiggerj

Not really
In order for us to make an informed decision, we first need the information, which we all know we don't get
Our information is restricted, censored and polluted in order to support our govs agenda

An example

Genetically modified foods
Now I'm fully against GM foods - considering the information and data we have,
But therein lays the problem
It's evident we don't have all the information
What if we do indeed need to be developing GM foods - but they can't tell us why, so as not to scare us,panic us or indeed start a collapse

Ok maybe a bad example .........hmmmm maybe the economy
Now if we all knew how bad it was, many would withdraw all their bank accounts, some wouldn't pay bills/taxes, stock markets would go nuts ect ect and turn a bad situation into a disaster

Wow, under such hopeless circumstances why bother voting at all? It's like telling the government what an acquaintance of mine likes to say: Just do what you want - you will anyway.

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 08:17 PM by SuperHanz

I would be wary of listening to anything natural news has to tell you. While the natural news story tells you that he is some sort of victim the fact is he was given numerous chances to stop what he was doing and he was even allowed to continue to sell raw milk so long as he did not do it across state lines. I don't think there should be voting online unless places linking to the polls are held accountable for the crap they spew along with the people we are voting for.

reply posted on 26-8-2012 @ 09:06 PM by PatriotAct

It won't work, just look into diebold. Every program can be hacked.

reply posted on 28-8-2012 @ 08:03 AM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by HamrHeed
If we had control of anything, the welfare queens would have been gone 1900 and few years ago. It's not like they're going to just say "ok, the people know whats best"

In a society where voting occurs, does it really matter whether or not the people know what's best? If the majority voted to have pink balloons attached to every parking meter on Tuesdays, shouldn't this policy be put into practice?
edit on 8/26/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)