SuiJurisForum

[grndslm]

I'm glad you mentioned the security issue.

I've actually never looked at it from the angle that I wouldn't be able to convince everybody. You may have a point there, but I'll still die trying to prove that a secure platform could be created.

(1) Run the platform on a virtual disk, that way you can run the same platform on EVERY operating system, and will not be bound the by the security risks of the host operating system.

(2) Obviously, even as a guest operating system, it would be designed off some type of GPL license, requiring the software to be FREE (in every sense of the word, with the code being visible for all to see, alter, or even abolish ).

(3) If the Social Security Administration can do a half-ass job at handling 9-digit numbers to represent every taxpayer in the U.S., then I figured we could do a half-ass job at assigning two separate passwords (one received in person, while the other is verified over phone, email, snail mail, etc.) that must be used together to create your "platform" username & password.

... As for your theory about the critters not wanting to know what the people think. You're totally correct. And this is why power must be shifted away from "the critters" and toward "the people". 67/33 split ain't bad for them.

[LaVidaRoja]

Another factor you are over-looking. The people under age 40 will 95% subscribe to your system. The people between 40 and 50 will 80% subscribe. The people between 50 and 60 will up to 70% subscribe. Over age 60? Less than 50% subscription. Computer use (and electronic device familiarity decreases at a geometric rate once you reach age 65. Probably less tha 10% of the people over age 85 are computer comfortable. However, people over age 75 have a high percentage of active voters. This system wiould have to be phased in over time. And you still might not reach/enfranchise at least 10% of the electorate.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Another factor you are over-looking. The people under age 40 will 95% subscribe to your system. The people between 40 and 50 will 80% subscribe. The people between 50 and 60 will up to 70% subscribe. Over age 60? Less than 50% subscription. Computer use (and electronic device familiarity decreases at a geometric rate once you reach age 65. Probably less tha 10% of the people over age 85 are computer comfortable. However, people over age 75 have a high percentage of active voters. This system wiould have to be phased in over time. And you still might not reach/enfranchise at least 10% of the electorate.

The absurdity of the "intelligence of masses" theory wherein the proper course of action should be left up to large numbers of people is one of the most dangerous and idiotic ideas to have ever been concocted.

In our particular situation in the US, the dumbing-down of the population has been underway for several decades and the results are only beginning to show up in "group think" socio-political decisions and elections.

Sorry, but millions of monkeys at keyboards won't produce anything of value.

[notorial dissent]

Plus, why are you assuming that enough of them would give enough of a damn to have it make any difference.

One of the reasons we have a republic, and not a democracy, is that democracy is a lot of work, and considering that even at the best voter turnout is marginal most of the time, why should this be any different.

With the current information glut and almost instantaneous contact ability we now have available, only a small portion of the populace is involved in the fashion advocated here, and there is no reason to assume anything would change, and quite frankly, a lot of the ones who are that heavily involved I do not want making decisions on my behalf.

[Pottapaug1938]

Actually, we have BOTH a republic and a democracy. For an example of a republic not run on democratic principles, look at Nazi Germany or (despite the names of the countries involved) the Soviet Union and the "satellite countries" of eastern Europe. Our democracy is generally a representative one, though (except in places like the Town Meetings we have in the smaller towns of New England).

[Arthur Rubin]

The states already can "overule" the federal government, since federal legistlation is made by people representing the states. Also, it only takes 38 simultaneous state resolutions to dissolve the Union.

38 simultaneous state resolutions would be unconstitutional times 38.

It is unconstitutional to "dissolve the Union". Any state (and all of its legislators, esp.) will be marked as traitors, and any insurrection will, itself, be dissolved.

I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, but 34 states can call a Constitutional Convention, and 38 states can ratify the results, even if it results in dissolving the Union.

[notorial dissent]

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the states from passing such a resolution, as there is nothing in the constitution to allow a SINGLE state to secede or abrogate Federal law or authority.

We have what is called a representative democracy, where the "will of the people" is expressed through their duly elected representatives, with the majority getting to select the representative of their viewpoint. As previously pointed out, the only direct democracy we have in this country is in places like town meetings where that is the form of the government.

[grndslm]

Another factor you are over-looking. The people under age 40 will 95% subscribe to your system. The people between 40 and 50 will 80% subscribe. The people between 50 and 60 will up to 70% subscribe. Over age 60? Less than 50% subscription. Computer use (and electronic device familiarity decreases at a geometric rate once you reach age 65. Probably less tha 10% of the people over age 85 are computer comfortable. However, people over age 75 have a high percentage of active voters. This system wiould have to be phased in over time. And you still might not reach/enfranchise at least 10% of the electorate.

You're right that the system would have to be phased in over time, but there's no better time than today... other than 10 years ago.

The fact that some people are not awake and are not activists has no bearing on the system. But changing the system could not possibly produce WORSE results, in terms of apathy.

The absurdity of the "intelligence of masses" theory wherein the proper course of action should be left up to large numbers of people is one of the most dangerous and idiotic ideas to have ever been concocted.

In our particular situation in the US, the dumbing-down of the population has been underway for several decades and the results are only beginning to show up in "group think" socio-political decisions and elections.

Sorry, but millions of monkeys at keyboards won't produce anything of value.

So you think that the "intelligence of masses" to decide which leader he'd prefer to have a beer with is a better system?

Our system is designed to look at everything BUT the issues. A new election year brings a battle between Republicans v. Democrats... not a battle between candidates with ideas. A new bill to vote on brings, also, a battle between Republicans v. Democrats... where we cannot single out who's messing with the process of compromise. It's Republicans! It's Democrats! It's Republicans! It's Democrats! No, actually it's Joe Schmoe, who's backed by corporate lobbyists instead of the people from his district who elected him.

Plus, why are you assuming that enough of them would give enough of a damn to have it make any difference.

One of the reasons we have a republic, and not a democracy, is that democracy is a lot of work, and considering that even at the best voter turnout is marginal most of the time, why should this be any different.

With the current information glut and almost instantaneous contact ability we now have available, only a small portion of the populace is involved in the fashion advocated here, and there is no reason to assume anything would change, and quite frankly, a lot of the ones who are that heavily involved I do not want making decisions on my behalf.

(1) Senators and Representatives don't give a damn about most issues, as well, actually. If half a million activists care about an issue, and are willing to organize around the issue and educate others... then so be it. This is GOOD. If nobody cares about commemorating some event or denouncing some foreign entity, then you'd expect to see less activists, therefore, less activity. Remember how I said that the next step after a basic forum is rating individual comments and threads (bills)?? All the bills will be neatly organized by activity, so others will do the work for you of prioritizing the issues. You can choose to rate individual comments or bills themselves, or leave it up to your 2 representatives for each jurisdiction to vote how you want, or you can be a freeman and take no place at all in electing the delegation or voting on individual bills. Your choice. Your will be done.

(2) I don't want the masses being the ultimate decider of any issue, which is the reason that the delegation remains. If the Representatives, the Senators, and the Internet Voters do not vote in lockstep... then why should any bill pass?? The Republic is good due to its gridlock. We need more gridlock, with MORE weight going in favor of the people, but not enough weight to do anything at all by ourselves.

Actually, we have BOTH a republic and a democracy. For an example of a republic not run on democratic principles, look at Nazi Germany or (despite the names of the countries involved) the Soviet Union and the "satellite countries" of eastern Europe. Our democracy is generally a representative one, though (except in places like the Town Meetings we have in the smaller towns of New England).

Actually, James Madison referred to a republic as a "representative democracy". So I'll stick to his understanding. The whole intention was that a republic would not vote away the rights of the individual, but we can clearly see that intended results and actual results are not always the same.

I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, but 34 states can call a Constitutional Convention, and 38 states can ratify the results, even if it results in dissolving the Union.

I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer, either, but I have read my fricking Constitution to know that secession from the Union will not be tolerated by any one in my state government!!! And that's the will of the People, dammit!

See here...

SECTION 5.
All political power is vested in, and derived from, the people; all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

SOURCES: 1817 art I §2; 1832 art I §2.


SECTION 6.
The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness; provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

SOURCES: 1817 art I §2; 1832 art I §2.


SECTION 7.
The right to withdraw from the Federal Union on account of any real or supposed grievance, shall never be assumed by this state, nor shall any law be passed in derogation of the paramount allegiance of the citizens of this state to the government of the United States.

SOURCES: 1869 art I §20.

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the states from passing such a resolution, as there is nothing in the constitution to allow a SINGLE state to secede or abrogate Federal law or authority.

We have what is called a representative democracy, where the "will of the people" is expressed through their duly elected representatives, with the majority getting to select the representative of their viewpoint. As previously pointed out, the only direct democracy we have in this country is in places like town meetings where that is the form of the government.

I just quoted my Constitution, above, so don't tell me what it does or doesn't say until you've actually read it.

[grndslm]

Oh yea... One more thing I wanted to mention but forgot to...

The electoral college is the cause of apathy. If my vote will always turn into a Republican vote at the electorate level, then WHY GO VOTE???

Do I seriously have to move to a battle ground state to get representation from "my" President?? Apparently, that is the only option.

Is that really a better system than rating my preferred Presidents on a list from 1 to 10...

(1) Ron Paul
(2) Dennish Kucinich
(3) Mike Gravel
(4) Fred Thompson
(5) Mike Huckabee
(6) Bill Richardson
(7) N/A
(8) N/A
(9) N/A
(10) N/A

????

Next Presidential election, my preferred Presidential list would look more like this..

(1) Ron Paul
(2) Jesse Ventura
(3) N/A
...
(10) N/A

The System should not be causing voters to choose their preferred leader based on how others around them are voting, would you not agree?? Why should I be forced to believing that I am going to lose if I don't vote Republican or Democrat, or that my state's electoral votes have already been decided???

[Kestrel]

I used to be concerned about voter apathy.

Then I noticed what kind of people got elected when the Great Unwashed Masses showed up at the polls, because they were inspired by some candidate or issue. You know the type. They've seldom ever voted, they know nothing about the candidates or the issues, but they're here now because they can finally vote for "someone who looks like me." Or they're voting to raise someone else's taxes so they can get free money. Or both.

Now I would support an initiative to require would-be voters to pass BOTH a literacy test and an American government knowledge test before being allowed to register to vote.

[notorial dissent]

I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer, either, but I have read my fricking Constitution to know that secession from the Union will not be tolerated by any one in my state government!!! And that's the will of the People, dammit!

See here...

SECTION 5.
All political power is vested in, and derived from, the people; all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

SOURCES: 1817 art I §2; 1832 art I §2.


SECTION 6.
The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness; provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

SOURCES: 1817 art I §2; 1832 art I §2.


SECTION 7.
The right to withdraw from the Federal Union on account of any real or supposed grievance, shall never be assumed by this state, nor shall any law be passed in derogation of the paramount allegiance of the citizens of this state to the government of the United States.

SOURCES: 1869 art I §20.

I just quoted my Constitution, above, so don't tell me what it does or doesn't say until you've actually read it.

What you have quoted is that YOUR state constitution says that there is no "right to withdraw from the Federal Union on account of any real or supposed grievance, shall never be assumed by this state". Where your reading comprehension fails, as usual, is that this is in reference to your state withdrawing individually from the Union. What the states do in concert supercedes that constitution and can change, and or abolish the Federal Constitution if they so choose. My statement, was, and is that there is nothing in the Federal Constitution preventing the states from dissolving the union, if they so choose.

[fortinbras]

Grndslm is quoting from the Mississippi constitution.

[notorial dissent]

Which is what I said and noted, I however, was speaking of the Federal Constitution, and that was what I was speaking about to begin with.

[grndslm]

And while you can cast PART of the blame on the system and the parties, you also have to place part of the blame on the electorate and the education they receive, as about 82%.........well, you get the idea.

Absolutely. I do not place so much blame on the electorate as the education system.

But yes, the election system I will place blame on, as well.

Our ideas of honest elections and world-class education needs a jump into the 21st Century.

I used to be concerned about voter apathy.

Then I noticed what kind of people got elected when the Great Unwashed Masses showed up at the polls, because they were inspired by some candidate or issue. You know the type. They've seldom ever voted, they know nothing about the candidates or the issues, but they're here now because they can finally vote for "someone who looks like me." Or they're voting to raise someone else's taxes so they can get free money. Or both.

Now I would support an initiative to require would-be voters to pass BOTH a literacy test and an American government knowledge test before being allowed to register to vote.

I'm all for activists in the know being the only ones who get to vote, myself.

I have personally advocated that legislators should be required to answer, say, 8 out of 10 questions [of a random pool of 20 to 50 questions?] before being granted the "privilege" of voting on each individual bill, so why shouldn't "Internet Voters" (aka: electorate) be required to answer questions about their preferred delegate before voting? And why shouldn't they be required to answer from the same random pool of questions when it comes to voting on bills, just like the delegates should be required to do??

Many more checks and balances can be had with 21st Century Tools if you really want them.

I know I do. We all know we need to start using new tools, but we keep letting others tell us that "it can't be done, they don't care, they're too stupid, the mob will rule and will pillage our rights and properties". No, none of that's true. Checks and balances can be placed on such a system, just as I have explained.

Are there any more "standard" responses that we haven't covered yet?

Which is what I said and noted, I however, was speaking of the Federal Constitution, and that was what I was speaking about to begin with.

Well... I'm the one who brought up the issue, and you never bothered to ask me WHICH constitution I was referring to, now, did you??

[wserra]

Now I would support an initiative to require would-be voters to pass BOTH a literacy test and an American government knowledge test before being allowed to register to vote.

Who writes the test?

I have personally advocated that legislators should be required to answer, say, 8 out of 10 questions [of a random pool of 20 to 50 questions?]

Who writes the questions?

N.B. For all I know, either or both of you was/were writing keyboard in cheek.

[Kestrel]

Now I would support an initiative to require would-be voters to pass BOTH a literacy test and an American government knowledge test before being allowed to register to vote.

Who writes the test?

I have personally advocated that legislators should be required to answer, say, 8 out of 10 questions [of a random pool of 20 to 50 questions?]

Who writes the questions?

N.B. For all I know, either or both of you was/were writing keyboard in cheek.

Actually, no, I am serious. The tests I would use are the Civics Test and the English Test given to aspiring naturalized US citizens, written by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Here's the official practice test: Naturalization Self Test

Anyone who can't pass that has no business voting.

[Paul]

The only one I would trust to write and administer that test is me, and the only reason I trust me is because there is no way I would have anything to do with such a test. Once I agreed to get involved, I would no longer be trustworthy.

[Cathulhu]

The only one I would trust to write and administer that test is me, and the only reason I trust me is because there is no way I would have anything to do with such a test. Once I agreed to get involved, I would no longer be trustworthy.

A genuinely perfect explanation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

[wserra]

If viewed as a test of Uncertainty as applied to social interactions, Groucho beat Paul to it.

[LPC]

Now I would support an initiative to require would-be voters to pass BOTH a literacy test and an American government knowledge test before being allowed to register to vote.

Who writes the test?

I have personally advocated that legislators should be required to answer, say, 8 out of 10 questions [of a random pool of 20 to 50 questions?]

Who writes the questions?

N.B. For all I know, either or both of you was/were writing keyboard in cheek.

A relative of mine supported a civics literacy test for voting. I counter-proposed an economics literacy test. For example, if you believe that reductions in tax rates produce increased tax revenue, you would flunk and be ineligible to vote.