U.S. Senate candidate pledges direct democracy; electronic vote on all bills

[yllus]

Good idea or great idea?

Daniel Hollingsworth (Oregon) for US Senate, 2014

Vote for direct democracy and vote on every bill in the US Senate. If elected, Daniel Hollingsworth will take a digital vote of Oregon citizens for every issue and cast the vote they demand.

As a software industry veteran and experienced in tech startups, Daniel Hollingsworth knows about the power of technology and the importance of disrupting broken systems. The possibility of direct democracy is within our reach, thanks to the Internet.

Imagine verifying your identity with the same industry-trusted systems used by banks and credit bureaus, logging in, seeing every bill up for vote, casting your vote, and then your senator casting a vote decided by the People. This is possible. Make it happen: vote for Daniel Hollingsworth (Oregon) for US Senate, 2014.

 

[Matt1970]

There is no point in elected officials if we vote on every bill.

 

[raildogg]

delete please. Sorry!

 

[MovingTarget]

Eh, I don't know. We aren't Switzerland. Although a direct democracy could be implemented on a state level, it would be a logistical nightmare by comparison on a national (federal) level due to population size and density levels.

Edit: I see that he would be doing this for his votes in the Senate. Although that would be feasible, trying to do it in real time to keep pace with the Senate schedule is still a bad idea. The citizenry couldn't keep up with that.

 

[michal1980]

terrible idea.

 

[spittledip]

There is no point in elected officials if we vote on every bill.

I agree, I am for electronic voting on all bills as well!

 

[LumbergTech]

I like the idea myself. It would take society some time to adjust, but ultimately I think we would be better off.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Direct democracy is the fastest way to ensure that the majority steps on the neck of the minority. There is reason why our founding fathers looked at France and said "You know what? That's not for us."

 

[manimal]

gladiatorial combat wouldnt be far off.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Direct democracy is the fastest way to ensure that the majority steps on the neck of the minority. There is reason why our founding fathers looked at France and said "You know what? That's not for us."

You mean Monarchy, don't ya?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You mean Monarchy, don't ya?

No I mean the mob rule they saw occurring in France at the time that went overboard with their lust for political revenge.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Yeah, democracy isn't actually all that great.

 

[Brainonska511]

No I mean the mob rule they saw occurring in France at the time that went overboard with their lust for political revenge.

US Constitution adopted: 1787
French Revolution Starts: 1789
Time machine stolen by gang of zombie Founding Fathers and brought to the year 1786: 2999
-----------
To the topic at hand: seems kind of dumb. I vote for a representative to handle these issues for me. There are too many issues for me to make informed decisions on everything - it would be a full time job in itself.

 

[MovingTarget]

No I mean the mob rule they saw occurring in France at the time that went overboard with their lust for political revenge.

Robespierre comes to mind.... Direct democracy done improperly can make for quite the bloodbath....

 

[DucatiMonster696]

US Constitution adopted: 1787
French Revolution Starts: 1789
Time machine stolen by gang of zombie Founding Fathers and brought to the year 1786: 2999

I never mentioned anything about dates.

I did however mention that at the period of time they were able to see the madness of France's Revolution and never once did they feel the need to go back and change our constitution in favor of a more "direct democracy" approach.

 

[Slick5150]

Yes, let's let people that pay absolutely no attention to the economy, world affairs or any other news item directly vote on bills that affect those things. What can possibly go wrong?

 

[LumbergTech]

Direct democracy is the fastest way to ensure that the majority steps on the neck of the minority. There is reason why our founding fathers looked at France and said "You know what? That's not for us."

What is the alternative, a minority to step on the neck of the majority? A smaller number of people to dictate what is right?

I think its a discussion worth having over and over again as time rolls on.

 

[LumbergTech]

Yes, let's let people that pay absolutely no attention to the economy, world affairs or any other news item directly vote on bills that affect those things. What can possibly go wrong?

Yes, so instead, we can just trust the ones who claim to know everything, without being about to verify it..what can possibly go wrong? How do we have the ability to vote people into power who DO know if we dont have the ability to analyze the information for ourselves? Obviously, no one person can know everything. Some will know more than others, but how we decide who to trust and how many people we need involved is not so black and white.

I would like to add that this isn't necessarily an all or nothing thing, we could change the level of involvement in voting on issues without going overboard.

 

[Incorruptible]

The US wasn't meant to be a democracy but a Republic. Its a horrible idea

 

[LumbergTech]

The US wasn't meant to be a democracy but a Republic. Its a horrible idea

Why? What kinds of things do you think would happen that are negative?

 

[RampantAndroid]

The entire system is based on being a republic, not a democracy. This isn't popular vote rules, nor should it be.

 

[Fenixgoon]

the only problem is that the majority is not always right.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Why? What kinds of things do you think would happen that are negative?

Yeah, what could ever go wrong when the majority has the ability to create laws at the expense of the minority via a direct democracy system. /sarcasm

 

[Genx87]

Horrible idea.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

What is the alternative, a minority to step on the neck of the majority? A smaller number of people to dictate what is right?

I think its a discussion worth having over and over again as time rolls on.

Our nation was founded on the principals of a set systems of checks and balances. In other words this creates a situation in which political mechanisms in our government insure that the majority cannot act or hold to much power without some measure of support from the minority and in return the minority cannot act or hold to much power without some measure of support from the majority.

When neither agree then we get grid-lock which means the system is working as intended so as to prevent a run away train of terrible actions and ideas from holding sway and power over the lives of individuals in society who would be most affected if either the majority or minority gain to much power.