A New Democracy

[rob_just_rob]

Rob,

I think you are wrong because we did get latter and not the former anyways.
If voting was held off for a week or two we would more than likely have a larger national discussion and probably get it right. Note the theory about collective wisdom which lynch pins this idea.

I fear that you have more faith in the average voter's attention span than I do. I can't imagine most people spending a week or 2 thinking about or discussing an issue that doesn't involve celebrity sex or nudity, Oprah, sports, or reality television. And aside that easy knock on the average person's interest in political issues, most people just don't have time to do the research necessary to be informed on every issue that comes up for a vote. Being a representative is a full time job (or it should be).

And there still remains the issue of who drafts the legislation to be voted on, and how the legislation gets edited, if at all. When would that be decided? What happens if you miss a vote on a new draft because you were at work? What if the person running the process decides to play dirty tricks like holding votes on holiday Mondays, late at night, or during "Grey's Anatomy"? It's hard enough to get people off their asses to vote once every couple of years, and now you're expecting them to vote daily, if not more often?

Lastly... a referendum system is a recipe for false-populist attempts to eliminate minority rights. Good luck in such a system if you're gay, black, Muslim, or poor.

Oh yes, poor... I guess if you're poor, you're effectively disenfranchised if you have no computer access...

 

[B_spiker067]

I fear that you have more faith in the average voter's attention span than I do. I can't imagine most people spending a week or 2 thinking about or discussing an issue that doesn't involve celebrity sex or nudity, Oprah, sports, or reality television. And aside that easy knock on the average person's interest in political issues, most people just don't have time to do the research necessary to be informed on every issue that comes up for a vote. Being a representative is a full time job (or it should be).

The apathy is because they don't actually feel like their vote counts. And again you can abstain your vote or have it proxied to your elected representative's vote.

And there still remains the issue of who drafts the legislation to be voted on, and how the legislation gets edited, if at all. When would that be decided? What happens if you miss a vote on a new draft because you were at work? What if the person running the process decides to play dirty tricks like holding votes on holiday Mondays, late at night, or during "Grey's Anatomy"? It's hard enough to get people off their asses to vote once every couple of years, and now you're expecting them to vote daily, if not more often?

I clarified the daily thing actually becomes a bi-weekly thing. I only put daily because it was a reference to how many reasonably safe and reliable transactions actually occur within the banking industry.

Lastly... a referendum system is a recipe for false-populist attempts to eliminate minority rights. Good luck in such a system if you're gay, black, Muslim, or poor.

No true. The Senate, President and Supreme Court would remain in place. In fact even the members of the House would continue to exist as a body that would craft legislation and perform the procedural work.

Oh yes, poor... I guess if you're poor, you're effectively disenfranchised if you have no computer access...

No, not the poor, but rather the un-educated who don't know HOW to use a computer. Imagine if the un-educated actually thought learning how to use a computer could positively affect their lives.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I'll make two last points:

1. How many people do you think have actually read a single law from cover to cover? Stuff like tax codes, criminal codes, economic treaties, that run to hundreds of pages?

(They'll have to read many of them in your proposed system, every two weeks, or more often. Incidentally, if you have votes every two weeks, legislation will take months or years to pass, what with drafts, redrafts, amendments, and the like.)

2. Have you ever worked on a committee drafting policies? That's something I do from time to time where I work. Even a fairly basic 20-page policy can take weeks to finalize. Loopholes get discovered, legal weighs in, other participants add points that the original author didn't consider. This is with 3-4 participants in the committee. Now imagine the same process with millions of people.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how this will ever work. Nobody's willing to invest the time - because if done right, the time involved per person will be enormous. And in the absence of that time investment, the persons running the system will be able to exploit it for their own ends.

 

[rob_just_rob]

No true. The Senate, President and Supreme Court would remain in place. In fact even the members of the House would continue to exist as a body that would craft legislation and perform the procedural work.

As I have stated, whoever gets to draft the question also effectively gets to decide what the answer will be.

 

[PussyWellington]

You bet your sweet ass they are. I've posted several times about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her comrades, and their comments about this very issues. They were very vocal about how corrupt the republicans were for their involvement with K Street; but now in majority, they have chosen to continue those practices.I'm sure I would not have too much trouble coming up with a solution for both those problems.

Ha, nice call. Have a close look at the Bolshevik Revolution and how it relates to the current situation in the United States. You may be quite startled.

I really feel for you citizens of the USA at the moment. Something has to be done and quickly. I find it very hard to have much respect for your country and that makes me feel sad. You are also possibly about to experience another huge exchange of wealth, similar to the Depression in the 30's. It's going to get ugly.


and that is me in the picture

 

[B_spiker067]

I'll make two last points:

1. How many people do you think have actually read a single law from cover to cover? Stuff like tax codes, criminal codes, economic treaties, that run to hundreds of pages?

(They'll have to read many of them in your proposed system, every two weeks, or more often. Incidentally, if you have votes every two weeks, legislation will take months or years to pass, what with drafts, redrafts, amendments, and the like.)

Doesn't matter. I can either be involved or not. Abstain my vote or give it to my elected representative. I could vote on nothing or everything. I could vote only on war referendums. My vote would be a carrot to my elected representative. Have you ever heard of an OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY.?The work of a few can be leveraged for the many. Maybe I would subscribe to a community that would pre-digest the bills and give me the information I needed. Maybe my community would find piggy back items in a bill and broadcast that fact or warn me about the civil rights I'm losing. I'd take my vote and use it accordingly. The large number of voters would ostensibly be smarter than the small number of House members.

2. Have you ever worked on a committee drafting policies? That's something I do from time to time where I work. Even a fairly basic 20-page policy can take weeks to finalize. Loopholes get discovered, legal weighs in, other participants add points that the original author didn't consider. This is with 3-4 participants in the committee. Now imagine the same process with millions of people.


I'm sorry, but I can't see how this will ever work. Nobody's willing to invest the time - because if done right, the time involved per person will be enormous. And in the absence of that time investment, the persons running the system will be able to exploit it for their own ends.

Oh, again I would not involve myself in the minutiae. The reps would more than likely still do that. I'm not saying it wouldn't be messy.

 

[B_spiker067]

As I have stated, whoever gets to draft the question also effectively gets to decide what the answer will be.

I think a new paradigm would be in place. If they want a bill to pass they would need it to please the most people.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Ha, nice call. Have a close look at the Bolshevik Revolution and how it relates to the current situation in the United States. You may be quite startled.

I really feel for you citizens of the USA at the moment. Something has to be done and quickly. I find it very hard to have much respect for your country and that makes me feel sad. You are also possibly about to experience another huge exchange of wealth, similar to the Depression in the 30's. It's going to get ugly.


and that is me in the picture

I doubt I would be startled, because although I'm no expert in history, I do have a basic understand of some major events that had global consequences; I see enough parallels to disturb, but not startle me.

When you find it hard to have much respect for my country, please keep in mind - the citizens are not the government, and the converse applies. I love my country, but I'm very dissatisfied with our government.

And the possiblity of impending financial disaster has not escaped me.

 

[Shelby]

Ha, nice call. Have a close look at the Bolshevik Revolution and how it relates to the current situation in the United States. You may be quite startled.

I really feel for you citizens of the USA at the moment. Something has to be done and quickly. I find it very hard to have much respect for your country and that makes me feel sad. You are also possibly about to experience another huge exchange of wealth, similar to the Depression in the 30's. It's going to get ugly.


and that is me in the picture

Possibly, but unlikely.

You can keep hoping though.

 

[B_big dirigible]

"Resolved: We will invade Afghanistan and Iraq in order to destroy al-qaida"?

But... wait... al-qaida didn't have a presence in Iraq on 9/11. How does the internet voter separate Iraq from Afghanistan if they have no (or very limited) ability to draft, amend, or debate this bill?

Even today, how many voters could find Afghanistan without a map? Or even with a map? What countries are on its borders? What is its strategic importance? How many voters can even define "strategic"? Quite a few, I imagine, but is merely "quite a few" anywhere near enough?

How many voters could tell you, even now, why US B-24s bombed Italy sixty years ago? (Huh? What did Italy have to do with Pearl Harbor?) Why did the battleship Massachusetts bombarded Casablanca? (Yeah, the famous one, in the movie. That's in Africa. But it's a French town. Wasn't France an ally? WTF?) How did the Pahlavis end up on the Persian throne? (There were specific actions which accomplished it, and specific reasons for those actions, none of which had anything to do with Persia per se.)

The average schnook hasn't a clue as to why the easy stuff happened, and he's seriously expected to have a say in determining the details - or even the broad outlines - of current policy? Not too likely.

Note that none of this is an argument that a bona-fide dummyhead like, say, Sen. Boxer, does have a clue. But a large batch of clueless isn't really better than a small batch of clueless, despite the laws of statistics and stochastic variables.

 

[Corius]

Politics is still the art of the possible. In our choices we are seldom, if ever, given a choice between good and evil. But to damn both parties equally or even to pronounce your plague on all houses really doesn't take care of the problems we face.
We have polls which already give us a pretty good idea of the "at the moment" opinion of the public. But, again, ask yourself if you would want government by public opinion. I hope we still want public policies that are based on thorough research, careful deliberation, and proper consideration for the varieties of persons with a multitude of needs and interests who will be living under those policies. In the end, you and I depend upon the good judgment and consideration of our elected representatives.
Many of our fellow citizens are coming to the realization that merely getting rid of most of government and putting each of us on our own might please those with power but would hardly serve the common good. Government can be an instrument of oppression but it can also do good. It is the job of eqch of us to do what we can to keep those who serve us in government honest.
Powerful interests in our society are able to get their voices heard; they hire lobbyist to work at it full time. But, if our goal is a truly just society we need to make sure that the interests of the least advantaged
in our society are also heard.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I still say public opinion is not always necessarily the best indicator of what should be policy... or law. The whole point of much of our Constitution is designed to PREVENT prevailing opinion to dictate policy and law. The majority will never have the interests of the minority at heart.

 

[B_JQblonde]

I still say public opinion is not always necessarily the best indicator of what should be policy... or law. The whole point of much of our Constitution is designed to PREVENT prevailing opinion to dictate policy and law. The majority will never have the interests of the minority at heart.

Agreed.
Public opinion is a moving target, subject to many whims and not at all easily measurable.

THink , for example , of some of the public opinion you might have gleaned on Septemeber 15th ,2001.

 

[B_spiker067]

Tragic.

I'm not the only one who suffers from the sin of pride.

It could be an abject failure of imagination or possibly the messenger.

a nod to vestigial.

 

[DC_DEEP]

It would be interesting to be able to see how ratification of the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 19th Amendments would have gone had it been primarily a popular vote. Also interesting to note that Negro males achieved suffrage 50 years before women of any color did.

 

[B_spiker067]

It would be interesting to be able to see how ratification of the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 19th Amendments would have gone had it been primarily a popular vote. Also interesting to note that Negro males achieved suffrage 50 years before women of any color did.

Funny.

Rob says the authors of the legislation would rule.

You say it would be the unconscionable mob.

I say it would average out to the best foot forward.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Funny.

Rob says the authors of the legislation would rule.

You say it would be the unconscionable mob.

I say it would average out to the best foot forward.

Both could be true. If the hoi poloi vote on what is presented to them, then they have the final say. But it does entirely depend upon what is presented to them. If what the majority want is not presented as one of the choices, do they actually get what they want?

 

[B_spiker067]

If what the majority want is not presented as one of the choices, do they actually get what they want?

Nobody ever gets what they want even under today's system.

Under a new system more people will get to vote on whether passing a bill is more important than not passing it. Remember when Gingrich and Clinton stopped the government for a while. That was a good thing.

I'd love to vote on Congress' next pay raise.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
I'd love to vote on Congress' next pay raise.

We get to vote on their pay raise this coming November... excuse me, I need to count the icicles on Hell's ceiling.

On a serious note, here's a trick question: who votes to give Congress an annual pay raise?

 

[rob_just_rob]

I still say public opinion is not always necessarily the best indicator of what should be policy... or law. The whole point of much of our Constitution is designed to PREVENT prevailing opinion to dictate policy and law. The majority will never have the interests of the minority at heart.

That's the other point I was trying to get across.