A new Idea for Democracy

I just had a thought of a new idea for democracy that could actually work.

Instead of voting for political parties (which it where is all goes wrong). We should simply vote on policies.

I can see you scratching your head...

Here's how it would work. In the current system a party gets elected with 'their' policies, and then they are implemented by the part of 'govern-men-t' that never changes, the public servants.

So in the current system it doesn't matter which party you vote for the same people are actually putting those policies into action.

Starting to get a hint of where I'm going here?

Here's the idea, everyone could submit ideas with regard to policies, which would go through a type of filtering system where people could vote up or down the various suggestions that 'the people' have made. This could be done via a website easily.

Then when it comes to time the vote 'proper' the general population would vote on Policies that they would like to see enacted in the next 4 years.

Imagine the money that would be saved, and I'm not just talking about the salaries of the politicians, there are all the associated costs. Travel expenses, Food, Accommodation, Travel the list just goes on and on.

So no politicians just policies.
Personally I think this idea is a winner.

I would agree with you. However the problem isn't that the politicians just havent figured out a way to make the system more efficient and streamlined for everybody... The problem is you have these power hungry politicians that crave political power and put themselves before the people. When you have a system that promotes the thought of 'career politicians' or having a president who will spend 1 billion dollars in campaigning for a job that makes like 125,000 a year... you know theres some shennanigans going on.

reply to post by xtcsx


So why not just remove the 'source' of the problem? The Politicians.
In this day and age, with the access to technology that we do it just seems like the Logical answer.
I think part of it has to do with Human nature. We as a species seem to like to be 'led' by someone, it also gives us someone to blame if things don't go as planned. This new way we the people take complete responsibility for what does or doesn't happen.

I was agree it’s a good idea. The Wisdom of the Crowds phenomena scientifically confirms it would work much better than elected experts.
Doubters Educate Yourself by Watching 5 mins of BBC “The Code”
www.youtube.com...

The problem has been identified above. It’s not that popularism-democracy will lead to disaster, but the people who throughout history have caused disaster by becoming full time, professional liars (manipulators of the crowds) would be out of work. People might argue that the media will simply become the new manipulator except…
1. It already is (see Iraq War and Saddam’s WMD, Libya and Syria suffering freedom fighters as opposed to insurgents & terrorists)
2. A vote by Direct Democracy would soon have the propaganda practices of the MSM curtailed one by one, in the best possible ways.
3. Sites like ATS will still exist, whose opinion leaders can & do lead over people.

So we the people both invent and vote on policy..
Sweet! Nothing like having the daily popular idea to become law.

Finally I can vote for zero taxes and roads made of gold! And invade those durned Iranians for having that big death to America billboard

reply to post by creatives


Have you ever actually voted? Just wondering.

P.S.
I won't be responding to Trolls.
Sticks & Stones...

reply to post by creatives


No offense but your idea is flawed on multiple levels.

First of all, the policies that are proposed by Congress are usually thoroughly researched and they are made with the help of advisors and experts on the given subject. This helps them stand up to critique during debates. It would be rather silly for a Congressman to propose a bill that simply cannot be fit into the budget.

If people are allowed to make these propositions without oversight who knows what they are going to be asking for and if its popular it will simply pass without any research done into the possible negative effects.

Another issue is that many policies are based on sensitive information, especially foreign policy decisions. What your saying is that all this information should now be made public so everyone can make an informed decision. This simply won't work.

"So we have information that Russia is going to invade a neighboring country and we know this because we have been spying on them. Ok people...lets come up with a policy."

You see the issue with this?

Originally posted by creatives
P.S.
I won't be responding to Trolls.
Sticks & Stones...

edit on 21-2-2013 by creatives because: edit text

Do you mean that you will not be responding to anyone that does not share your views on the subject? You should consider a job in politics, then you would be in a position of power and say the same thing except you can call people who are critical of your ideas un-American terrorists.

It is all the pork that is attached to a bill that causes it to fail. It is all the compromises that make a good bill an ugly bill. You rub my back and I'll rub yours gone wild.

Originally posted by rickymouse
It is all the pork that is attached to a bill that causes it to fail. It is all the compromises that make a good bill an ugly bill. You rub my back and I'll rub yours gone wild.

Some pork I fully agree exists.
But some people call pork what they don't need (regardless if someone else needs it).

For instance, if a federal budget includes some "tornado relief", I, living in a area that is not known for tornados, may consider it pork.
However, someone in tornado alley will see it as essential.

That's the issue with "pork" spending...its a subjective stance.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by rickymouse
It is all the pork that is attached to a bill that causes it to fail. It is all the compromises that make a good bill an ugly bill. You rub my back and I'll rub yours gone wild.

Some pork I fully agree exists.
But some people call pork what they don't need (regardless if someone else needs it).

For instance, if a federal budget includes some "tornado relief", I, living in a area that is not known for tornados, may consider it pork.
However, someone in tornado alley will see it as essential.

That's the issue with "pork" spending...its a subjective stance.

Helping out areas hit by disasters is what the government should do. That is not pork. To pay to rebuild a house in an area that will most likely get destroyed again is not rational though. We can't be paying for things over and over in this country.

Pork is tearing out and replacing a perfectly good highway when all it needs is asphalt added to it. Pork is giving areas federal money for things that aren't really needed, the government is not supposed to do that. If a road is getting real bad and needs replacement, than that is ok. I have seen the county road commissions around here ignoring road maintenance so they can get money to replace them later. We are supposed to maintain what we have so it lasts longer. Applying for blight money to tear down a building just because it is an eyesore is also not right. If it is a danger to the city residents that's a different situation. I have seen this money used to tear down good structures.

We could save a lot of time and money by electing a dictator for life. That would be the first policy idea I submit. I would be the dictator.