Navigation | ||
My WhyNot? | ||
Icon Key | ||||||||||||
The community's level of support for this idea is...
| ||||||||||||
Absolute Democracy | |||||||||||||||||
I am re-posting a previous comment as an idea suggestion to encourage further discussion. I too agree that America should move towards a true democracy. It seems that many, perhaps most people have become completely disenfranchised with the current political system, with responses ranging from apathy to disgust. Only 61.7 to 63% of total eligible voters voted in the last presidential election (131.2 million people voted whereas the estimates of total eligible voters range from approx. 208 million to approx. 212 Million.) Enabling people to vote on the issues directly would change people's entire relationship to their city, state, and country. I'm not speaking of abolishing the entire system that we have. Of course we need a justice system, as well as the elected representatives to actually carry out what the public would request. In regards to electing officials, extensive campaigning could be prohibited. Think of how many programs could be supported with the $730 Million that was spent on the campaign expenditures of "Brand Obama" or the $333 Million for McCain. Perhaps a single video of the candidate speaking of their competence and background, with an imposed limit on rhetoric, would be sufficient. If officials were not carrying out their duties and following the will of the people, they could be quickly and efficiently discarded, with no minimum terms of office, and new officials would be voted on to take their place. There are many competent people who want to serve their country that are not given a chance because they do not have corporate or media support and sponsorship from a party. The system I have in mind would be one where every vote is equal, no matter how wealthy or educated you are, or how many friends or corporate sponsors you have. There would be separate categories and voting sessions taking place every month, for your city, state, and then the entire country, and the issues that relate to each. Everyone and anyone could submit an idea/issue to be voted on; no idea or issue would be too insignificant or important. The ideas/issues to be voted on would then be collected on a website a month or two in advance of voting. Under the heading of each succinct and clearly stated issue would be a list of relevant sources and background material to educate and inform about any and all aspects related to the issue. Here would be links to articles from newspapers and magazines, charts, graphs, memorandums, reports, statistics, videos, etc., a list that could be constantly expanded. Opinion pieces would only be allowed to be posted here if originally published in a major newspaper. Of course, there would also be a comments section where everyone would be able to unconditionally contribute their own thoughts, opinions. The team of people who managed the website would shift through the links to group them into tentative categories of support or opposition or neutrality. No, not everyone would read every article, but I do believe that many people would, again realizing that every vote would count. Can you imagine realizing that your vote could actually be the difference of whether the U.S. went to war with Afghanistan? What I do wonder is in reference to something sand said about the unaware and uneducated citizenry. If every single person in the country eligible to vote voted on the issue of health care (and every vote was equal, from a minimum wage factory worker to the President), what would the outcome be? I think that Americans would clearly voice what they want and the outcome would be reasonable and fair (in this case, a single-payer public health plan easily available to everyone). Even on perhaps more controversial issues like abortion or war, with available access to knowledge and information through the proposed website, I wonder what the true majority of Americans would want. Depending on the nature of the issue, a month or 2, 3, 6, or 9 after a vote a review and poll would be taken to see whether people were happy with the result. Again depending on the issue, after a time period, people would be able to appeal the vote, offering alternatives or amendments, to be then voted on. There could be a maximum on times an issue could be appealed. These are just ideas but I truly feel that something simple and effective could be worked out so that true democracy could exist, and I don't believe that chaos would result. Voting on issues is essential, rather than on a person or party that usually reneges, changes or fails in its promises, or commits monumental atrocities like most administrations have committed, in most cases in direct opposition to what the public wanted.
true democracy, Jun 13 2009
What do you think of this idea or comment?
| |||||||||||||||||
I agree
No opinion
I disagreeUsers who liked this idea also liked: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other ideas in category (Government): | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Add your comment
Since any radical change can only be effected peacefully by the current legislative bodies and the suggestions, whatever their value, would severely invade and decrease current powers the chance that such a modification would ever be permitted by those profiting enormously by the current system is nil. It would probably require a violent revolution to make such changes and that, at least at the moment, seems exceedingly unlikely
Your thoughts are idealistic and illogical.
A few points:"Perhaps a single video" - I agree wholeheartedly that the current campaign routine is overdone and more closely related to branding than democracy. However, this problme cannot be controlled. Have you ever heard or seen an ad for a candidate ending with the phrase, "Paid for by the friends of _____." Anyone can make a commercial if they can afford to pay the networks, this is essentially a free market - democracy.
"they could be quickly and efficiently discarded" - impeachment process exists but the citizens of the USA do not fight for their right - again, democracy exists but the people are lazy.
"no minimum terms of office" - disagree, we need to have minimum terms or we would have chaos in the most powerful country on the planet. The stability of the USA has a direct impact on the major economies in the world, as proven by the recent collapse. Having a changing of the guards multiple times in a short period can be disasterous. Although, as stated above, impeachment should be exercised more regularly by the American people.
"There are many competent people..." - I agree. Unfortunately the wealthy run the world since society is primarily run on capitalism. Without sponsorship, the candidate would not have commercials to run their campaign. Without commercials, Americans would not know who to vote for...or would they. If Americans did not rely on TV and paid advertising to dictate their behaviour, we little people would have a fighting chance at mass mmovements. Historic leaders like MLK, Che, Jesus, Hitler (excuse the non PC) were able to cultivate a tremendous following without wealth - HOW??????? Figure this out and you will overcome the necessity for commercials, and ultimately sponsorship!!!
"ideas/issues to be voted on would then be collected..." - cute but impossible. Look at "Why Not?" as an example, take the ideas as potential requests for legislation. Now, you have 250million Americans submitting various ideas/rants/requests that need to be sifted and edited, then voted on! I like the idea but we are too big and complex to do it, maybe a small town in upstate NY with 100k people can do something like this, but not USA. However, you do touch on something interesting; the idea that people would actually perform research before voting. This is not a reality in USA. Unfortunately, most people act according to commercials; food, clothing, voting, thoughts, are all managed by the commerical market. What you are suggesting is changing the culture of the American people. This only happens when the people make it happen. I personally research alternative ideas and read often. I am raising my chioldren to question everything and do their own research without accepting the status quo. If you want your system to come to life, change your behaviour and convince others to do the same. The research has already been done and is typically available on the web, including that about most US candidates. People can research if they want to, they just do not.
As nice as it sounds, I can't be for this in any configuation. The USA was founded on some principles that many people don't actually agree with today. Freedom of religion (or lack-of religion), the right to bear arms and even freedom of the press are three of our liberties that many people--easily a majority--would vote out of existance in a blink.
Christians would be happy to eliminate freedom of religion, because they're the majority. Guns are very unpopular now because of crime, but the people alive today have never had to protect themselves from a corrupt government. And many people will cite instances where they believe the press 'has gone too far', even though because I believe in freedom, I don't agree that 'too far' is possible.
A constitutional republic is an ideal form of government to allow permanent protection for minority or unpopular freedoms.
In a democracy, you could literally find yourself voting all of the taxes onto the smokers--or agreeing to deport all foriegn workers--or diallowing some freedom that your hold dear. Scary to me.