PDA

View Full Version : Just a crazy idea.. but give me some input.




PastaRocket848
08-29-2011, 10:27 AM
Ok so I've been thinking for a while now (I know, it's dangerous), and I've come to decide that our political system, as it currently exists, is incapable of supporting the idea of liberty long-term. You know what they say, power corrupts, and given enough time, any advances made in the name of liberty will be reversed by power-hungry politicians who seek to impose upon that liberty for their own personal gain. This is human nature, and is an unfortunate by-product of representative democracy. You simply can't trust 535 people /not/ to subvert liberty for their own causes.

So why do we have a representative democracy in the first place? i understand that at the time of our nation's founding such a beast was necessary. there was no such thing as telecommunication and they couldnt realistically expect every american citizen to show up at the capitol and vote once a week. the technical hurdle to direct democracy are a thing of the past. people can do, quite literally, anything, instantly and securely via computer networking. the vast majority of citizens have the necessary terminals in their homes, and those who do not all have easy, free public access to them (libraries).

So then, why, in the age of Google and Twitter, do we still send 535 idiots with agendas to Washington to do our bidding for us? why not just replace the entire legislative branch with direct democracy via a very well secured voting portal on the internet? some would say security issues, but that is just a cop-out. votes for elected officials all go over the wire regardless, and we all know that the results are far from tamper-proof as-is. if we can put a man on the moon we can build a secure voting website.

am i missing something here? why do we trust these people in a time when there is absolutely no technical requirement to do so?

CaptUSA
08-29-2011, 10:35 AM
Do you understand the absolute chaos that would be caused by this? This is rule by popular opinion. Minority rights would be gone. We'd have huge swings in policy.

Of course, you can't compare it to what we have now, but a Constitutional Republic is really the best way of governance. It will always break down due to polarization, but it happens even faster and more directly in a democracy.

Guitarzan
08-29-2011, 10:39 AM
Let me get this right, you are correctly criticizing the downfalls of a democracy, and suggesting that the fix is a more 'direct' democracy? smh

Peace&Freedom
08-29-2011, 10:43 AM
Digital democracy is still mob rule, digitally asserted. The Founders did not set up the representative republic system because of technological limitations, but to protect rights and minority factions, and to decentralize power. A direct democracy would most likely lead to an accelerated centralization of power through national referendums, where voters could be easily swayed by well funded emotional, demogagic campaigns. The last decade of WOT and war mongering rhetoric should tell you how the reasonable voice of liberty would fare. At least the current system permits the possibility of electing a Ron or Rand Paul in districts where pro-liberty sentiment exists. A direct democratic system would codify a national government.

Acala
08-29-2011, 10:44 AM
Democracy is nothing but a highly refined, carefully administered means for the strong to do what they have always done which is take what they want from the weak. It is ritualized violent pillaging. The only legitimate form of government is government to which EVERYONE consents.

dannno
08-29-2011, 10:46 AM
Go to youtube and watch the intro and the rest of the short 6 part series called "Individualism vs. Collectivism"

One of the pieces focuses on Democracy, the rest help setup the framework for why it is bad.

PastaRocket848
08-29-2011, 10:48 AM
How would you be any more proned to "chaos" or minorities losing rights? Isn't that what the courts are for, preventing such things? Also, aren't our elected reps supposed to represent their constituents any way? What is the benefit of a bought-and-paid-for middleman?

CaptUSA
08-29-2011, 10:49 AM
Democracy is nothing but a highly refined, carefully administered means for the strong to do what they have always done which is take what they want from the weak. It is ritualized violent pillaging. The only legitimate form of government is government to which EVERYONE consents.

Or, as the quote goes "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch" - (Not Ben Franklin)

WilliamC
08-29-2011, 10:51 AM
Methinks many of our problems stem from promiscuous enfranchisement.

If no one who made their living from or who was dependent upon the FedGov were allowed to vote then maybe democracy would work a little better.

specsaregood
08-29-2011, 10:51 AM
Also, aren't our elected reps supposed to represent their constituents any way? What is the benefit of a bought-and-paid-for middleman?

Well there used to be this thing called Senators, who were supposed to represent the interests of their state, not the constituents of their state. It was one way of further limiting the power of the federal government. Tis a shame those guys disappeared with the 17th amendment.

Ronpauljones
08-29-2011, 10:53 AM
Direct democracy actually works. It actually is consent of the governed.

CaptUSA
08-29-2011, 10:54 AM
Direct democracy actually works. It actually is consent of the governed.

Um, unless you're the lamb.

PastaRocket848
08-29-2011, 10:56 AM
i understand the argument of "mob rule", i just don't understand how electing 535 people to do the voting on behalf of the people is any different than letting the people just vote directly. if they're voting the will of their constituents (as they should be) then the end result is the same. the difference is that you are giving a select few the power that ALL of the people should have, which just increases the chances of abuse. there would be no sweetheart deals without congressman to hand them out. you'd have a hard time convincing the entire country to give your buddy a no-bid contract.

if the federal gov't existed in it's constitutional scope of authority (let's pretend it does for the sake or argument), then there would be virtually no room for abuse of power, oppression of minorities, or anything else people say would happen in such a system. sure the people could vote to approve a law depriving all black people of all their civil rights. the preident isn't going to sign it. the supreme court isn't going to uphold it. how is this any more dangerous than what we have now?

Guitarzan
08-29-2011, 10:59 AM
Direct democracy actually works. It actually is consent of the governed.


So, if 51% of the people vote that sex before marriage is illegal and punishable by death, is that proof that direct democracy works?

Matthew5
08-29-2011, 11:00 AM
Ask the ancient Greeks how direct democracy worked out.

(hint: it didn't)

bolil
08-29-2011, 11:01 AM
It works so far as it might function. Direct democracy would be nothing but a tyranny of the majority. Plato, despite his faults, recognized this 1600 years ago. Someone else said it, but for minority rights to be protected a constitution like ours is a must and to protect the constitution a republic is a must (A republic operates under the rule of law). I would take a monarchy over a democracy.


Direct democracy actually works. It actually is consent of the governed.

CaptUSA
08-29-2011, 11:04 AM
It sounds like you just want Congress removed and not our system of government. So, something like a democracy, but with the checks and balances of a Republic. But ask yourself this:

Do you think Wyoming will get the same kind of representation as New York?
Do you think the income tax would be fair?
Do you think government benefits would go down or up?
What happens when you have more people depending on government than you have providing for government?

Granted, we're getting here anyway, but you have to figure it would happen way faster with a Democracy filling in for representation.

PastaRocket848
08-29-2011, 11:10 AM
It sounds like you just want Congress removed and not our system of government. So, something like a democracy, but with the checks and balances of a Republic. But ask yourself this:

Do you think Wyoming will get the same kind of representation as New York?
Do you think the income tax would be fair?
Do you think government benefits would go down or up?
What happens when you have more people depending on government than you have providing for government?

Granted, we're getting here anyway, but you have to figure it would happen way faster with a Democracy filling in for representation.

Exactly. everyone is responding as though people would just vote and their vote would come with the force of law. No. There is still a Judicial and Executive branch, and all of the assurances that come with them. No president is going to sign a law banning premarital sex, for example.

as far as representation, it's fair. one citizen = one vote. doesnt matter if you're from wyoming or nyc, your vote is a vote. the income tax wouldnt exist because it were speaking of a constitutionally confined federal gov't (hypothetically of course). gov't benefits would do whatever the people want them to, so long as a president signs it and the courts don't rule it unconstitutional.

sure the problems are great, my point is just that they're all the same problems we already have. all we do is hand a bunch of power to a few guys and let them do the regulating, when the entire system of elected representation only serves to promote cronyism and all the other bad things that happen when men gain power.

Matthew5
08-29-2011, 11:12 AM
Athenian democracy didn't work because the uneducated masses were so easily swayed (see Heinlein's quote about bread and circuses).

Youtube and bad auto-tuned music videos would replace the comedies and plays of Grecian yore.

Matthew5
08-29-2011, 11:16 AM
Exactly. everyone is responding as though people would just vote and their vote would come with the force of law. No. There is still a Judicial and Executive branch, and all of the assurances that come with them. No president is going to sign a law banning premarital sex, for example.


The President is also elected by the people, so he would be included in your congressional overthrow.

PastaRocket848
08-29-2011, 11:16 AM
i refuse to accept the "youre not smart enough so elect these people who are" logic. i'm not stupid. my peers arent stupid. nancy pelosi, on the other hand, may be.

we let stupid people vote all the time, we just call them "Congress"

PastaRocket848
08-29-2011, 11:17 AM
The President is also elected by the people, so he would be included in your congressional overthrow.

no. the legislative process would just be replaced with direct votes from citizens on issues. no effect whatsoever to any other branch of gov't.

Matthew5
08-29-2011, 11:23 AM
i refuse to accept the "youre not smart enough so elect these people who are" logic. i'm not stupid. my peers arent stupid. nancy pelosi, on the other hand, may be.

we let stupid people vote all the time, we just call them "Congress"

I didn't say stupid, I said uneducated. I'm sure you're not stupid, but I can bet you're uneducated in certain areas. So it is with the masses. Many in our society can't afford the time to educate themselves on the issues, therefore they're ignorant of many things. That's why we elect one of our own to send the Washington to educate themselves on all the issues and vote in our best interest.

That's why direct democracy did not and will not work. The uneducated masses cannot vote fully understanding an issue.

PastaRocket848
08-29-2011, 11:26 AM
True, but you're making the assumption that elected leaders will go to Washington, read up on the issues, and vote in a way which they believe represents the will of the people. That just doesn't happen. They vote in the way that best serves their own (or their party's own) interests.

You could post the same resources congressman get to review issues on the voting portal. If people don't understand the issue it's not because they didn't have the material. I mean hell congress doesn't even read the bills before they vote on them as it is now, we don't have far to fall in that regard.

CaptUSA
08-29-2011, 11:33 AM
Hey what happens to the President that doesn't sign the law that the "American People" passed?

Pasta, I think you're missing something very important. Right now, your reps have a incentive to get it right. If they piss off their constituents, they get voted out. But that will not be the case with your model. There are no consequences for voting on a bill that turns out badly.

MelissaWV
08-29-2011, 11:34 AM
How would you be any more proned to "chaos" or minorities losing rights? Isn't that what the courts are for, preventing such things? Also, aren't our elected reps supposed to represent their constituents any way? What is the benefit of a bought-and-paid-for middleman?

If I want to vote, I register and I go to the appropriate building. I verifiy I am who I say I am. It is not perfect, and electronic voting machines are easily tampered with.

Now, under this hypothetical, I register online. I go to the appropriate website and verify I am who I say I am. It is not perfect, and websites are easily tampered with.

Here are some questions for you that may or may not have already been asked in this thread (I did not read the whole thing):

1. Where do people who have no internet go to vote?
2. I accidentally clicked the wrong thing. How do I remedy that?
3. My spouse and I live at the same address. We receive different "registration codes" or whatever, but I can easily nab hers and use it to have additional votes for the candidate of my choice. I can do the same thing for anyone over 18 living in my household, including the elderly. What is to stop me from logging on multiple times in this manner and multiplying my vote?
4. Will these sites be made compatible with text-to-speech and other assistive program types for the disabled?
5. Without any paper trail, how will we know that votes were actually cast appropriately and counted correctly? (This is happening now, and is one major gripe against e-voting machines.)
6. How will you prevent underaged voting (children obtaining my information as in #3 above and voting)?

I could go on, really, but I fail to see how this direct democracy idea fixes anything.

Edit to add:

7. How will you prevent the Government's cookie (spyware) from tattling on your every move? :p

Acala
08-29-2011, 11:37 AM
I don't care how you set up your government as long as I have the right to secede from it. Simple as that.

Matthew5
08-29-2011, 12:34 PM
Also, maybe I missed it, but who would bring up resolutions to vote? Who would write them?

Also, who's going to log on and vote on thousands of resolutions? People are busy, they're not going to log on to a website, go through the hassle of verifying their identity, do 100s of hours of research and then vote. No, you'll only have a select few taking the time to do this, and in turn, it would be minority rule.

Now you've just created an oligarchy, which is the end result of every direct democracy attempt.

Ronpauljones
08-29-2011, 12:54 PM
So, if 51% of the people vote that sex before marriage is illegal and punishable by death, is that proof that direct democracy works?

You should probably research how direct democracy has worked in practice rather than making up theoretical scenarios.