41–50 of 76 posts
Well this is just polling, it still is a stupid idea even from just poling point of view. To tell the truth I would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... if there is interest I am willing to write up why, but now I need to make coffee
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only potential catch is that this is a lot MORE targets for espionage. You only need to find one person with some life circumstances (new kid, long commute, conflict of interests, etc) and spearfish/blackmail/torture/teach scala accordingly. Granted, your proposal does address a lot of things, but this is something that would need to be addressed. Thoughts?
It does give more targets to potentially get an insider into office, but the benefit gained by corrupting you local congressman by lets say forcing him to learn clojure is now limited as he is only responsible for .0003125 of the congressional power. If you managed to convert your congressman to be a lisp hipster you would control .001 of the congress ( and potentially more due to the current power arrangement )
I heartily support this idea; however, the problem I see is that the secret ballot is not enforced, either in the process, or through the threat of legal enforcement. If I can reliably observe someone voting, even with their consent, votes can be influenced through purchase or coercion. And unless new laws get passed to cover online pseudo-voting, such things wouldn't even be illegal, and I could roll around poor-inc…
I'm pretty sure lobbying is socially acceptable.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? Normal people don't have the time to vote on every single issue; we have our own jobs to do. A system like this just means he'll be voting with the loudest minority for everything that comes up.
> Normal people don't have the time to vote on every single issue It's really easy to have both direct democracy and the convenience of not having to vote on any given issue. You could grant the use of your vote to another citizen or a group of citizens. If you don't like how they vote you could instantly revoke their right to cast your vote on your behalf and go back to voting on every single issue. You could also g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switzerland is just over 2.6% the size of the U.S. and much, much more homogenous a culture. They're not remotely comparable.
I can understand how cultural homogeneity could impact the decision-making process (though Switzerland is a country of four official languages, so it's not that homogeneous), but I don't see how size matters. Care to elaborate?
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? Normal people don't have the time to vote on every single issue; we have our own jobs to do. A system like this just means he'll be voting with the loudest minority for everything that comes up.
It's not ideal (what is?!) but I'd take that over deciding based on what their richest donors want - which is how most people in Congress vote these days. Besides, voting based on what most vocal/active constituents want is usually a pretty good idea, because they are the ones who usually research the topic the most, and have good solutions, and want their voices heard. And a senator would still have to make a judgem…
Faulty syllogism there, in my view. The most vocal/active constituents can also be the most easily manipulated or the most extremist ones. Consider that there have been several Congressional attempts at immigration reform in the last decade or so, all of which have been derailed by a hardline nativist lobby which insists on deportation of all illegal aliens, which nobody in their right mind considers sensible, ethical, or practical.
Frankly, I think there's an inverse correlation between political passion and expert knowledge.
At this point given technology and travel times, I would be more apt to support an amendment to replace the two Senators with the state's Governor. At least some fiscal control and concequences for state budgets would be discussed.
This is the wrong soution to this problem. The _right_ solution is to quadrouple the number of senators and house members. This effort shows that yes via technology we can have more people voting on the important business of the country , but it doesn't mean we should ignore the benefits of representative democracy and pretend everyone will know everything about everything. The right solution is to water down congres…
I also believe that this is the wrong solution, but I agree with the spirit of it. The people need a voice on individual laws, but the vast majority of the American public will not (and should not have to) educate themselves on the ins and outs of every issue brought before the legislative branch. I think the right solution would be to allow the public to overturn laws. Let the House and Senate do their jobs, but ena…
Direct democracy enables citizens to vote for every service imaginable and vote to pay no taxes for them.
If you really believe that the populace are so stupid as to think that they can get services without paying for them, why would they not elect representatives that promise the same thing? Representation rather than direct democracy does not help at all here.