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…
A more important step would be removing the direct election of senators. Senators should be selected by the state legislators to represent the views of the state.
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.
The people already do vote for such representatives.
Then representative democracy is no better than direct democracy in this case which was the point I was trying to make.
Direct democracy enables citizens to vote for every service imaginable and vote to pay no taxes for them.
Except in the real world. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland... But the US government seems to be doing a pretty good job of just that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays...
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 think you are asking for liquid democracy [0], as seen in pirate parties [1]. It is direct democracy with no mandatory delegation.
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 To tell the truth I would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...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
I'm curious to hear why you dislike the 17th amendment. If you find time, do come back and write it up.
As was stated by jrs235 it takes the state governments out of the picture at the federal level. This has lead to a much more powerful and invasive federal government for internal matters in America.
The senate was never intended to represent the people, it was intended to represent the states. The 17th Amendment usurped the states rightful representation in the federal government and would be best if repealed. But it's harder to control the state governments if the federal government can't enforce mandates such as withholding money from states that refuse to pass or enforce laws. Those in favor of such centraliz…
> to an elector tree like the old US Senate rather than direct voting for too many positions I mentioned this. The senators are still one of the largest divergent points from public interests that are direct elected. I'm all for abolishing the 17th amendment amongst other things (I disagree with the policy of 2 senators per state in principle anyway). > No state senator would pass such mandates laws and vote to limit…
I mostly agree with you. I however disagree that the citizenry shouldn't be involved in the fed. If the fed (and states) wish to approve some law or program that requires increases or creating new taxes, the citizens who ultimately pay those taxes should have a say... currently they do via the House of Representatives.