LaVidaRoja wrote: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.
Judge Roy Bean wrote: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.
notorial dissent wrote: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.
Pottapaug1938 wrote: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.
Arthur Rubin wrote: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.
notorial dissent wrote: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.