Would you participate in a nationwide citizens vote?

[NoStateofMind]

This thread brings to mind an idea and questions. The idea being a national vote once a month on differing topics. One could be the impeachment of a president, yet another could be ending the war. Advertise in major newspapers across the country when/where this vote would take place. All hand counted paper ballots with simple yes or no questions. This could be used to get a feeling of what America is thinking with any given situation. Now the only reason that this vote could not take place on a website is because it would be dismissed outright as being "botted" or "hacked". Volunteers could be used for counting the votes and submitting the totals. It may be far fetched, but not impossible with the right kind amount of funding.


Would you support this? Either by being proactive or financially?

Would you vote?

Do you think it would have an effect on politics in Washington?

 

[bamacre]

Isn't this what Congress is for?

This could be used to get a feeling of what America is thinking with any given situation.

Trust me, politicians and political organizations do A LOT of research.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Isn't this what Congress is for?

:laugh:

of course silly, but its obvious Congress isn't doing what we want. I bet that would be proven with the first vote

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
Isn't this what Congress is for?

:laugh:

of course silly, but its obvious Congress isn't doing what we want. I bet that would be proven with the first vote

Congress isn't doing a good job because their constituents aren't doing a good job.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
Isn't this what Congress is for?

:laugh:

of course silly, but its obvious Congress isn't doing what we want. I bet that would be proven with the first vote

Congress isn't doing a good job because their constituents aren't doing a good job.

Pass the buck? Thats what I get from it anyways.

 

[bamacre]

Just look at how many people wanted Hillary to be President.

 

[Craig234]

In principle, I"d like to say yes, but I'm afraid it would just be abused and cause harm, for example, used by the dominant party for its pet issues.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
Isn't this what Congress is for?

:laugh:

of course silly, but its obvious Congress isn't doing what we want. I bet that would be proven with the first vote

Congress' job is not to do what we want.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
Isn't this what Congress is for?

:laugh:

of course silly, but its obvious Congress isn't doing what we want. I bet that would be proven with the first vote

Congress' job is not to do what we want.

and thats been proven....

 

[StageLeft]

In some ways i support it but in others the people in general are so stupid that from one month to anothe they could be manipulated in very obscene ways. They get to vote for presidents btu it takes months for them to make the decision. Something done quickly on a whim would give their impulsivity too much power.

 

[sandorski]

The non-Internet method wouldn't really work well, just too inconvenient, IMO. I've thought about this too, but instead of a few Issues/month, it would include all Votes of passing of Bills/Laws/etc. Allow everyone a say, but only include the Public Votes as part of the final Tally if there is a certain pre-determined proportion of the population Voting and even then you can weight the Public Votes as less than the Elected Representatives. The idea isn't to create a Direct Democracy, but to give the Public some Direct Influence. One thing you need to prevent are organized campaigns on fringe Issues from being able to pass Bills/Laws when the Majority has no interest.

Which brings up a big downside to this: It is a very complex thing to implement. It would best be implemented on a Municipal level, then County or State before even thinking of Nationally. You need experience with it to work out the kinks.

 

[SexyK]

Why would you want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be able to have a say in hugely important policy decisions? The vast majority of people are completely uneducated about the implications of complex legislation. This proposal defeats the entire purpose of a representative government. Might as well tear up the constitution and start from scratch if you're going to do this. Should the Supreme Court have to poll the entire country before handing down a decision? Should the president have to send out paper ballot before he decides how to implement a statute? It's a ridiculous encumbrance on the legislative branch. If you don't like what they're doing, vote them out.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: SexyK
Why would you want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be able to have a say in hugely important policy decisions? The vast majority of people are completely uneducated about the implications of complex legislation. This proposal defeats the entire purpose of a representative government. Might as well tear up the constitution and start from scratch if you're going to do this. Should the Supreme Court have to poll the entire country before handing down a decision? Should the president have to send out paper ballot before he decides how to implement a statute? It's a ridiculous encumbrance on the legislative branch. If you don't like what they're doing, vote them out.

You clearly don't have much respect for the average person's ability to mak good decisions on important topics

Me, neither

 

[PrinceofWands]

Two problems: cost, and voter fatigue.

There are already too many votes...the ideal is one vote or election period every 6 years. Any more frequent voting lowers voter turnout and increases civic apathy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
In principle, I"d like to say yes, but I'm afraid it would just be abused and cause harm, for example, used by the dominant party for its pet issues.

+1

Not to mention...Americans dont vote. Lowest voting turnout of any democratic society? Right. Things will change. Everything thats wrong with this country could be fixed within 8 years if people spent an hour a week learning about whats going on in their country. Politicians do what they do not because theyre rich. Not because theyre lobbied. But because the people LET THEM.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
Isn't this what Congress is for?

:laugh:

of course silly, but its obvious Congress isn't doing what we want. I bet that would be proven with the first vote

Congress isn't doing a good job because their constituents aren't doing a good job.

Because the political parties stand between us and Congress. Only the loyalists get the money and endorsements necessary to swoon the public in a BS PR campaign.

The solution is not the OP, it is the refusal to vote Republican or Democrat and to cast your vote for any alternative that if given enough weight will break their stranglehold over the government.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
Isn't this what Congress is for?

:laugh:

of course silly, but its obvious Congress isn't doing what we want. I bet that would be proven with the first vote

Congress isn't doing a good job because their constituents aren't doing a good job.

Because the political parties stand between us and Congress. Only the loyalists get the money and endorsements necessary to swoon the public in a BS PR campaign.

The solution is not the OP, it is the refusal to vote Republican or Democrat and to cast your vote for any alternative that if given enough weight will break their stranglehold over the government.

Sorry man but it isnt the politicians NOR lobbyists responsibility to inform the public. It's the public's. Money really doesn't buy votes. The bottom line is if you throw a billion dollars at a candidates campaign and a million to to a better one, if the people get informed and vote for the latter, the former is shit outta luck. We have the government we have not because of lobbyists, or corporations, or from corruption. It's because of an uninformed non-voting public. And no amount of taxes or reform can fix that. As (I think) Larry the cable guy says, "You cant fix stupid".

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: SexyK
Why would you want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be able to have a say in hugely important policy decisions? The vast majority of people are completely uneducated about the implications of complex legislation. This proposal defeats the entire purpose of a representative government. Might as well tear up the constitution and start from scratch if you're going to do this.

Exactly. We operate more like a Republic (electing representatives) than a pure democracy (everyone votes on everything) because
A) governing is a full-time job (thousands of them, actually)
B) the average citizen doesn't have the time or the will or the knowledge

 

[ElFenix]

if we're just trying to get a sense of the public standard polling is much cheaper and generally accurate. and unlike polling all you'd get in monthly votes is zealots and so you'd get a warped view of what the public thinks.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
In some ways i support it but in others the people in general are so stupid that from one month to anothe they could be manipulated in very obscene ways. They get to vote for presidents btu it takes months for them to make the decision. Something done quickly on a whim would give their impulsivity too much power.

This is one the primary reasons the US is a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy. Direct democracies even on a small scale are prone to chaos, on a large scale it would be a nightmare.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The idea being a national vote once a month on differing topics. One could be the impeachment of a president, yet another could be ending the war.

And neither would be supported by the constitution. And here I thought thats what Paulbots were all about!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The idea isn't to create a Direct Democracy, but to give the Public some Direct Influence.

Exactly. Thats what I meant. Not creating a political party but giving people a voice. Influence over our representatives, the way its meant to be.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: SexyK
Why would you want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be able to have a say in hugely important policy decisions? The vast majority of people are completely uneducated about the implications of complex legislation.

You would love the monarchy system then. Nobles thought the same of commoners.

This proposal defeats the entire purpose of a representative government. Might as well tear up the constitution and start from scratch if you're going to do this. Should the Supreme Court have to poll the entire country before handing down a decision? Should the president have to send out paper ballot before he decides how to implement a statute? It's a ridiculous encumbrance on the legislative branch. If you don't like what they're doing, vote them out.

Wrong, this does not defeat the purpose of the constitution or the representative form of government. It gives the representatives concrete direction in what way his people want him to vote. We don't vote people in the vote how they see fit, they are REPRESENTATIVES for a reason.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The idea being a national vote once a month on differing topics. One could be the impeachment of a president, yet another could be ending the war.

And neither would be supported by the constitution. And here I thought thats what Paulbots were all about!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Just to add, no one said anything about a direct Democracy. Thats just landmines waiting to be stepped on and if you know me at all you know I support a republic form of government.