Conditional Direct Democracy

[1sttruck]

Well, it's time to get up on the soapbox, put on my foil pyramid hat, and offer a solution to some of the problems perplexing us :^)

One problem with our representative form of government is that once the Congressmen and Senators are elected and head off to Washington we basically have no control over them. The lobbyists rely upon that. Although it's not functional yet, the feasability of electronic voting will provide the opportunity for a direct democracy. I'm not proposing that we do away with our representatives, instead I'm proposing that the people have the opportunity to vote on any issue, but the direct votes would only replace the vote of the representative when the count hit a certain percentage, 25% as an example.

The representative would have immediate feedback on any issue on how well he is representing his constituents, and the people would have a record on how well they're being represented. The process would allow the people to bypass the influence of the lobbyists, but also put them more at mercy of the media.

 

[Bugzii]

Look up Switzerland - the oldest "modern" republic - where people can vote to raise or lower taxes (within reason), decide to purchase new weapon systems, jet fighters, environmental regulations, etc. The government spends mucho bucks in educating the public on the issues prior to the referendum.

I know... it's a "socialist" country. Something the average Americano considers too liberal or communist or eviiiiiil to consider. But consider the following: the canton of Zug (30 minutes southwest of Zurich) has the LOWEST corporate tax in the world, and Switzerland manages 2/3 of the world's wealth. Not bad for being a socialist country, eh?

 

[Durrr]

There is something to this system, however, with the inherent size of this country, and all the things that COULD happen in such a large system, it might not be a good idea.. however, for small operations (10-25 million people), it would work excellently

 

[Al]

There would be no difference. Everyone would vote to lower taxes and raise spending on "do-good" projects.

 

[carrera79]

The issue regarding a direct democracy arise from the volatility of the public. People react emotionally and irrationaly before they think things through logically. Switzerland is a country composed of 7.3 million people vs. our 290 million. Their population is composed of a much more cohesive group of individuals, whereas ours is much more diverse. They have GDP per capita of $32,000 while ours is at $36,300 and a GDP growth rate (2002) of approximately .1%. The lesson that we should learn from Switzerland is that we should focus more on states rights and less on the federal govt. The federal govt. encompasses too many people who are too diverse to effectively govern each small division of this nation. I even think that the 16th amendment should be repealed giving the right to elect senators back to the state goverments in essence giving more power to the state, where it belongs. Our state governments are more in tune to our specific needs. The all encompassing federal government cannot determine the different needs of each area, and therefore cannot effectively satisfy our individual needs. Let us have a more direct form of democracy at the state level, and let the fed. govt. be responsible for what it was originally intended to do.

 

[1sttruck]

One item that might not be clear in the proposal is that the structure of the representative form of government will remain the same, 50 senators, 435 (?) Congressman, and that any direct voting would only apply to one's own Senator or Congressman. I'll guess that it would be common for most districts to continue to rely upon their representatives for mundane matters, that some districts would overide their representative often on hot issues, and that others wouldn't. Once the novelty wore off I'll guess that most representatives would align their votes more inline with their district's wishes, instead of toeing a party line or responding to lobbyists.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

I believed this was feasible until I witnessed the "hanging chad".

 

[Shannow]

I'd like to see a system where people vote on the issues, and agree that it's got to be easier than ever (witness electronic voting that just took place in India).

Problem is, that unless voting is mandatory, it ends up like an online poll, where pressure groups, and people who are interested strongly in their issues will take over, and pass stuff that the majority don't want, but don't feel strongly about...yeah, thet's their own problem, but see where I'm getting at ?

As a start, I'd like to see every vote passed along the lines of what a politician's constituents wants rather than what his party tells them to do.

My blood boils when the Prime Minister makes a great announcement that he is letting his ministers "vote their conscience" on the occasional topical subject.....They should be conscience voting EVERY time.