[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This could also be adapted for each representative to have his or her own channel to communicate with the people of their district to get their opinion on the subject.[/quote]
We have this now, it is called an email, letter, fax, phone call, or verbal communication.[/quote]
I wonder how many are actually read/looked at.
[/quote]
I don’t know if this is done or not, but if the total public opinion is made viewable, possibly in more than a yes/no option, one would be able to see why their representative went one way or the other.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No I don’t think it will happen and would probably not work anyway. I don’t think cost would go down, but rather the opposite. You’d go from the cost of x number of reps to millions of users needing to be online, the security costs to secure IDs would be enormous on its own and of course you’d have to pay for those that can’t afford the internet, but have the right to vote as well. Think subsidized cell phone, but for internet usage.
Aside from that, who would write, read. and argue for or against the bills? Would you read every single new bill? Could you imagine reading the health care law and then voting on it, what in your spare time, for every bill…F that.
Short of a major tech break through I don’t think it’s even a remote possiblity.
[/quote]
Cell phones for everybody???
Public libraries dude.[/quote]
How many computers are at your local library? Mine has like 5. Even if it’s say 50 people in my area that need them to vote, how can they possibly have enough time to read the bills, which are online and then vote? It’s just not feasible. [/quote]
I highly doubt that everyone would be voting on every single bill. They would be voting for or against the ones that concern them.[/quote]
Isn’t that a problem though? Shoudn’t everyone be represented everytime? [/quote]
If a certain issue has nothing to do with me, then I won’t go out of my way to waste my time on it, so no, not always.[/quote]
Just because an issue doesn’t affect you now doesn’t mean it won’t. If we did it this way slavery might still exist. Think about that for a second. Assuming you’re white and from the north why would you vote to end slavery. It doesn’t affect you at all and there’s no way at least at the time that the black vote (which didn’t exist) would have beat the vote for slavery. That’s a extreme example, but it’s not a stretch to think something similar couldn’t happen on a smaller scale.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Just because an issue doesn’t affect you now doesn’t mean it won’t. If we did it this way slavery might still exist. Think about that for a second. Assuming you’re white and from the
north why would you vote to end slavery. It doesn’t affect you at all and there’s no way at least at the time that the black vote (which didn’t exist) would have beat the vote for slavery. That’s a extreme example, but it’s not a stretch to think something similar couldn’t happen on a smaller scale.[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Just because an issue doesn’t affect you now doesn’t mean it won’t. If we did it this way slavery might still exist. Think about that for a second. Assuming you’re white and from the
north why would you vote to end slavery. It doesn’t affect you at all and there’s no way at least at the time that the black vote (which didn’t exist) would have beat the vote for slavery. That’s a extreme example, but it’s not a stretch to think something similar couldn’t happen on a smaller scale.[/quote]
You can’t be serious dude. Golden rule.[/quote]
I don’t even know what that means, but ya I’m serious. Here’s another example, what if the government wants to raise taxes so say everyone making over $500k pays 75%. Assuming this doesn’t affect you there’d be no reason to vote for it right? Now image 10-15 years down the road you finally reach $500k and now the gov gets 75% of it. That’s why we need representatives on all bills whether they directly affect us or not.
Ignorance is not bliss, not voting/not being represented can screw you in the future.
It would be trickey come up with a way to effectively do that on the internet but if we on the net or some other way I’d be all for it. Switzerland has more direct democracy than we do and I think that’s generally a good thing.
At the very least citizens should be able to vote for whether or not politicians get a raise and what sort of benefits they get. The foxes have long been guarding the hen house.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Just a crazy thought I had, and most likely has a lot of holes/issues with it, but stick with me.
With the prevalence of the internet these days, 1. will it ever happen 2. would it work for the political system to get a major overhaul and each American (well most anyways) to have a right to vote (rather than some politician) on various issues?
Hope that makes sense. I mean if we truly were to have a voice this would be it, rather than electing some official to be persuaded by lobbyists and/or outright lie to us.
Again, this is probably just a crazy idea, and I don’t pay much if any attention to politics.[/quote]
I have thought about similar ideas before. It certainly would be more pure in terms of democracy. The only problem with democracy, is that it’s difficult to insulate it from stupidity.
I think it’s a difficult argument that in the hands of politicians, the country is better served. But creating a more pure democracy would be an interesting prospect. However, it would really be limited in scope.
For instance, I don’t think you could put security of the nation in the hands of ‘all the people’. I don’t think the country would be best served because difficult decisions have to be made and the ‘people’ are simply not going to be engaged enough or know enough to make decisions like that.
For instance, Obama the candidate was going to close down Guantanamo, he didn’t and he can’t. Once he really ‘knew’ the situation, he found it could not be done. You cannot put decisions like that, in the hands of the people.
I think on social issues, though, it could be an interesting prospect, though and could reshape social policy. I often see a chasm between what is portrayed as popular views and what they actually are. So what is being represented, the portrayal or the reality? Sadly, I think I know the answer.
I think on social issues, though, it could be an interesting prospect, though and could reshape social policy. I often see a chasm between what is portrayed as popular views and what they actually are. So what is being represented, the portrayal or the reality? Sadly, I think I know the answer.[/quote]
I feel like a direct democracy only makes this problem worse, and gives the hive mind/mob rule way too much power.
A democracy eliminates the need for individual responsibility of thought for the good of the collective.