A serious question:

[The Big Cat]

Can somebody please explain to me why, 10 years into the "information age" when basically every voting American has access to devices which enable them to provide instantaneous feedback from anywhere at anytime, do we need a House of Representatives to serve as the middle man? In other words, why do I need some attention craving twit to "vote on my behalf" and/or at the behest of PR and lobbyist firms?

[Chef Jim]

Can somebody please explain to me why, 10 years into the "information age" when basically every voting American has access to devices which enable them to provide instantaneous feedback from anywhere at anytime, do we need a House of Representatives to serve as the middle man? In other words, why do I need some attention craving twit to "vote on my behalf" and/or at the behest of PR and lobbyist firms?

 

Because they be a twit but you're twitter.

[DC Tom]

Can somebody please explain to me why, 10 years into the "information age" when basically every voting American has access to devices which enable them to provide instantaneous feedback from anywhere at anytime, do we need a House of Representatives to serve as the middle man? In other words, why do I need some attention craving twit to "vote on my behalf" and/or at the behest of PR and lobbyist firms?

 

Because we don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. Your congresscritters represent your state to the federal government, not you personally.

 

At least theoretically. In fact, you have idjimits like Franken or Hillary Clinton representing not the voters of Minnesota or New York, but party interests (which means the party in general, and the party "membership" - i.e. the voting base). State representation's basically been taken out of it, gradually since the Civil War.

 

The reason the system's set up that way is largely because when the Constitution was written people's identification with the colonies (i.e. "states") was much stronger than it is today (also a large part of the reason the Civil War started), so it was just the natural thing to do. The other, significantly more minor, reason was to try to mitigate the oft-repeated idea of the "tyrrany of the majority" - having an additional layer to insulate legislation from direct democratic participation ensures against an overly-strong bias to special interests (the easiest, though not entirely accurate, modern example is the disparate influence NYC has on NYS politics).

 

 

(Addendum: I mention Franken and Clinton because those are the two most immediate examples I can think of. I know there's Republican examples of the same behavior as well.)

[The Big Cat]

The other, significantly more minor, reason was to try to mitigate the oft-repeated idea of the "tyrrany of the majority" - having an additional layer to insulate legislation from direct democratic participation ensures against an overly-strong bias to special interests (the easiest, though not entirely accurate, modern example is the disparate influence NYC has on NYS politics).

 

 

To be fair, this seems to be the only component of your response which explains the weaknesses of direct democratic participation. But wouldn't these so-called biases be watered down by everyone's "special" interests? It seems that if everyone had the same take on an issue, or in this case the allocation of money (since I don't include the Senate in this) it's much more than a "special" interest.

 

Seems that if you take the HOR out of the equation and say give everyone the opportunity to cast daily votes online (let's say), all your really missing (in terms of representation) is the introduction of bills. Am I missing something?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Motor voter was bad enough. The last thing I what to see is some lazy slob "twittering" his vote on on Federal legislation.

[Taro T]

To be fair, this seems to be the only component of your response which explains the weaknesses of direct democratic participation. But wouldn't these so-called biases be watered down by everyone's "special" interests? It seems that if everyone had the same take on an issue, or in this case the allocation of money (since I don't include the Senate in this) it's much more than a "special" interest.

 

Seems that if you take the HOR out of the equation and say give everyone the opportunity to cast daily votes online (let's say), all your really missing (in terms of representation) is the introduction of bills. Am I missing something?

What mechanics are you proposing to ensure no one votes more often than once on a particular issue?

 

What are your systems to make certain only legitimate citizens with full citizenship rights (ie felons and minors are out) vote?

 

What system would you use to ensure that people that work odd hours or are out of the country get the same opportunity to vote as those with normal jobs have?

 

What system would you use to ensure that the poor have the same access to the tools of voting as the rich?

 

How do you propose the vote tallies be counted and how would they be disseminated?

 

And far more importantly, what system do you propose to get 200MM or so people informed as to what is included in a 1,200 page spending bill?

 

Not busting your chops. Just curious how you would propose to implement this idea.

[Dwight Drane]

I think a better question would be.....given the information age where any able-bodied and motivated citizen can pull up every thinkable piece of information on anything or anyone, why do we keep putting the same corrupt, self-serving rodents into office to represent us?

[The Big Cat]

What mechanics are you proposing to ensure no one votes more often than once on a particular issue?

 

Seems like TSW has a pretty good handle on this one for their polls.

 

What are your systems to make certain only legitimate citizens with full citizenship rights (ie felons and minors are out) vote?

 

Highly encrypted log in. We've got SSN's, yes?

 

What system would you use to ensure that people that work odd hours or are out of the country get the same opportunity to vote as those with normal jobs have?

 

Polls are open for 72 hours once the issue is presented.

 

What system would you use to ensure that the poor have the same access to the tools of voting as the rich?

 

Is it only the rich people that have access to the internet? Everyone has access to public libraries. But if you don't subscribe to this whole internet thing, and don't have any friends/family who do either, what kind of person are you, and how frequently do you vote already?

 

How do you propose the vote tallies be counted and how would they be disseminated?

 

This is where it gets tricky.

 

And far more importantly, what system do you propose to get 200MM or so people informed as to what is included in a 1,200 page spending bill?

 

Set a word limit on provisions and itemize all the bills based on those provisions.

 

Not busting your chops. Just curious how you would propose to implement this idea.

 

All fair questions, and all questions/answers I've tossed around in my head recently. I've actually thought through the logistics more than I've demonstrated here. I'll pick this back up tomorrow when I have some more time.

[The Big Cat]

I think a better question would be.....given the information age where any able-bodied and motivated citizen can pull up every thinkable piece of information on anything or anyone, why do we keep putting the same corrupt, self-serving rodents into office to represent us?

 

tou-f-cking-che!

 

But I do think there's a helpless factor involved. Perhaps you'd see less empathy given greater responsibility?

[Chilly]

The other, significantly more minor, reason was to try to mitigate the oft-repeated idea of the "tyrrany of the majority" - having an additional layer to insulate legislation from direct democratic participation ensures against an overly-strong bias to special interests (the easiest, though not entirely accurate, modern example is the disparate influence NYC has on NYS politics).

 

There's a concept I haven't heard since some political science classes. It might be more minor but dear god was there a lot of boring writing about it.

 

To be fair, this seems to be the only component of your response which explains the weaknesses of direct democratic participation. But wouldn't these so-called biases be watered down by everyone's "special" interests? It seems that if everyone had the same take on an issue, or in this case the allocation of money (since I don't include the Senate in this) it's much more than a "special" interest.

 

Seems that if you take the HOR out of the equation and say give everyone the opportunity to cast daily votes online (let's say), all your really missing (in terms of representation) is the introduction of bills. Am I missing something?

 

Political philosophers since Aristotle have been arguing against direct democracy. Aristotle was specifically concerned about regular people who didn't have the time or skills to be able to govern, making it rule by a bunch of people who weren't good at ruling and didn't have time or ability to get good at it.

 

That was a huge oversimplification, but if you're interested in why direct democracies don't work, Aristotle formed the basis for a lot of arguments in the Politics.

 

There is an interesting idea that I think would be terribly hard to implement and not realistic called "open source governance": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governance . I think expanded policy writing access would be cool but it opens up a huge can of unsolvable worms with voting & policy review, as well as just too much access

 

I agree with Tom's point on rule for the party nowadays, but DD isn't the way to go (that'd create tyranny of the uninformed, or more likely, tyranny of the media opinions even more than today). I think changing SMSP to ensure a bunch of small, competing parties would be the way to go, so each segment has a small, changing amount of representation that all has to work together to make a majority is better, but its much more unstable than our current governmental system, be that as it may.

[Chilly]

tou-f-cking-che!

 

But I do think there's a helpless factor involved. Perhaps you'd see less empathy given greater responsibility?

 

Don't think so, still a cost/benefit analysis being done, the same one you hear all the time in political elections:

 

One vote won't change anything, so why should I bother?

[Taro T]

Seems like TSW has a pretty good handle on this one for their polls.

But if Tom wanted to vote in one of the polls, he could do it at least 3 different times w/ his 3 different logins.

Highly encrypted log in. We've got SSN's, yes?

Yes we do. And they are so effective as a tool in keeping illegal aliens out of the country that my senior Senator has proposed switching to biometric data. Which no doubt, somebody would find a workaround for that as well.

Polls are open for 72 hours once the issue is presented.

Are 72 hours enough time to fully understand the ramifications of how a bill maintaining sugar tariffs will impact another bill regarding celluosic ethanol production and existing petroleum production. Especially if the person reading the bill has no rudimentary knowledge of any of that?

 

Is it only the rich people that have access to the internet? Everyone has access to public libraries. But if you don't subscribe to this whole internet thing, and don't have any friends/family who do either, what kind of person are you, and how frequently do you vote already?

No, the poor have access to the internet as well. But how informed on an issue is an individual w/ a 10th grade education working 3 jobs and trying to raise a family going to be? They'd pretty much only know what they heard on the radio about a particular bill. How much of the nuts and bolts of a bill would they get from this format? I doubt they'd get much.

This is where it gets tricky.

Considering the fiascos that we've seen in Florida and Minnesota, I'd agree w/ you there.

Set a word limit on provisions and itemize all the bills based on those provisions.

Who would set the limit and who would enforce it? The executive couldn't enforce it - separation of powers issues. It also would pretty much do away with all trade agreements, as I doubt they could be reduced to 2-3 page documents.

All fair questions, and all questions/answers I've tossed around in my head recently. I've actually thought through the logistics more than I've demonstrated here. I'll pick this back up tomorrow when I have some more time.

While it is an interesting concept, and would like to read your additional thoughts on the matter; I see many difficult issues in attempting to implement such a system. And that's without even getting into how legislation is written, introduced, and debated to be put before a vote.

[/dev/null]

Set a word limit on provisions and itemize all the bills based on those provisions.

 

Yeah that won't set up any loopholes

 

You're also basing your assumptions on an informed populace. I suspect most people think an Omnibus Bill is one of the Autobots

[VABills]

Yeah that won't set up any loopholes

 

You're also basing your assumptions on an informed populace. I suspect most people think an Omnibus Bill is one of the Autobots

No everyone knows it's Omnibus prime. Omnibus Bill was the cartoon about a penguin and a strung out cat.

[Kelly the Dog]

People are generally stupid and/or ill-informed, don't have the time or the interest to find out what they are voting for, easily manipulated or duped by various media, and therefore, IMO, a huge majority of the people voting on any singular issue or bill would end up voting for the opposite of what they wanted.

 

Not to mention that the money various interests used to sway the vote of the general public that they now use on politicians would quite likely pollute and confuse every issue to a more frustrating degree than it does now.

[DC Tom]

To be fair, this seems to be the only component of your response which explains the weaknesses of direct democratic participation. But wouldn't these so-called biases be watered down by everyone's "special" interests? It seems that if everyone had the same take on an issue, or in this case the allocation of money (since I don't include the Senate in this) it's much more than a "special" interest.

 

Seems that if you take the HOR out of the equation and say give everyone the opportunity to cast daily votes online (let's say), all your really missing (in terms of representation) is the introduction of bills. Am I missing something?

 

Wasn't really trying to explain why direct democratic participation was weak (though anyone who reads the nonsense on this board should be able to see why). Was just trying to explain why we don't have it. I doubt the founding fathers sat around debating the pros and cons of a representative government over direct participation and "tyrrany of the majority"...I think it far more likely that, with states being much more independent and state loyalty being much stronger than we have today, led them to a system where state representation to the federal government made far more sense than any direct participation in or even direct representation to the federal government by the people.

[ans4e64]

Can somebody please explain to me why, 10 years into the "information age" when basically every voting American has access to devices which enable them to provide instantaneous feedback from anywhere at anytime, do we need a House of Representatives to serve as the middle man? In other words, why do I need some attention craving twit to "vote on my behalf" and/or at the behest of PR and lobbyist firms?

 

Because the majority of the general public are still dumbasses.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

To be fair, this seems to be the only component of your response which explains the weaknesses of direct democratic participation. But wouldn't these so-called biases be watered down by everyone's "special" interests? It seems that if everyone had the same take on an issue, or in this case the allocation of money (since I don't include the Senate in this) it's much more than a "special" interest.

 

Seems that if you take the HOR out of the equation and say give everyone the opportunity to cast daily votes online (let's say), all your really missing (in terms of representation) is the introduction of bills. Am I missing something?

Look a California's proposition system. You get some really messed up ideas being considered and sometimes passed until they are overturned by the courts. It raises the entertainment value of politics and I agree it annoying to have attention freaks in the House claiming credit for things that many have very little to do with.

 

Hmm, so you suggestion would be to hire professional staff to write legislation at the whim of any individual who has an idea. Interesting, but you think budget balancing is difficult now, try and get a budget let alone appropriations that come close to any kind of sense approved. Also, this would give greater influence to special interest groups and political parties because of their organizational ability and institutional memory.

[Kelly the Dog]

Look a California's proposition system. You get some really messed up ideas being considered and sometimes passed until they are overturned by the courts. It raises the entertainment value of politics and I agree it annoying to have attention freaks in the House claiming credit for things that many have very little to do with.

 

Hmm, so you suggestion would be to hire professional staff to write legislation at the whim of any individual who has an idea. Interesting, but you think budget balancing is difficult now, try and get a budget let alone appropriations that come close to any kind of sense approved. Also, this would give greater influence to special interest groups and political parties because of their organizational ability and institutional memory.

 

It is TRULY a remarkable experience and exercise to live in and vote in California when an important proposition is on the ballot. It is much easier to read and completely understand your full 30 page credit card agreement than it is to read and understand a proposition. No one knows which side they are voting for.

[DC Tom]

Because the majority of the general public are still dumbasses.

 

Let's not forget the recounts, too. Look at the circus surrounding Al Franken's election, or the complete, insane inability of Florida in 2000 to define "vote".

 

It's not just the "tyrrany of the majority" to worry about, it's the tyrrany of the retards doing the counting, too.