Democracy?

[johncmcleod]

Our system of government doesn't seem like a true democracy. We vote for people to make our decisions for us. Sometimes we have to vote for things we don't believe in. For example, when you vote for a politician it is very rare to agree with every one of his policies. But you still vote for him and that policy(ies) that you disagree with. Why can't we make more decisions ourselves?

What if we allowed the general public to vote on bills? The problem would be the people wouldn't understand the issues (the people in American don't care about politics anymore and don't even question the world around them, so we get leaders like Bush who brainwash the public easily).n The average person in the US probably couldn't make an educated decision on laws dealing with businesses' insurance coverage mental-health care. But what if for everything voted on (including candidates I guess) the voter had to pass a test on the issue? They'd have to answer just a few simple questions on the issue and each opposing side or the policies of the candidates and then their vote would count. Some people might say that it wouldn't be fair because they wouldn't know what to learn, but first off this would encourage people to look into things which is good, and second, the simple solution is to release a cheap pamphlet with some information on the issue (or candidate) and all the answers to the questions would be in there somewhere. And in the pamphlet sources would be given to places where people could find more information, and the reader would be very strongly encouraged to look into the issue more.

The problem is, who would write the tests? I haven't thought of it yet, but I'm sure there would be a solution to this. Maybe we could democratically elect the people, or maybe each party would write up questions or something.

So what do you think?

[Jon Miller]

it's not suppose to be a democracy

it is suppose to be a republic

JOn Miller

[Kuciwalker]

Representative democracy is the only form possible in anything larger than a city-state. A (relatively) small one.

EDIT: jon miller

[chequita guevara]

It's possible, if we developed a secure internet voting system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

SECURE internet voting system? What will you come up with next, che?

[Berzerker]

Our system of government doesn't seem like a true democracy. We vote for people to make our decisions for us. Sometimes we have to vote for things we don't believe in. For example, when you vote for a politician it is very rare to agree with every one of his policies. But you still vote for him and that policy(ies) that you disagree with. Why can't we make more decisions ourselves?

What if we allowed the general public to vote on bills?

An easier way would be to allow voters to earmark their taxdollars for programs they want to support. If you want your money spent on the military, then you could earmark a certain percentage for the military, etc...

[Kuciwalker]

"secure internet" = oxymoron

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
An easier way would be to allow voters to earmark their taxdollars for programs they want to support. If you want your money spent on the military, then you could earmark a certain percentage for the military, etc...

Doesn't work - then the money doesn't get spent as the majority wants it, it gets spent as the average of what everyone wants. Plus it probably wouldn't work.

[PLATO]

Actually the USA is a republic, which is really quite different in a democracy. It is, however, probably the closest thing practical with a large group.

[johncmcleod]

Well, I don't want a republic. I want a democracy.

Seond, I guess we could have voter stations built and open all of the time with plenty of extra ballots.

[Kuciwalker]

Doesn't work! It just doesn't. You cannot have an effective system that way.

For instance, who would decide what got on the ballots?

[Jon Miller]

"vote early, vote often"

Jon Miller

[johncmcleod]

We could elect people to write it. Or, the candidates could write their own questions. Questions for both candidates would have to be answered, so they'd be fair.

I just don't think that we should just dismiss the idea without giving it a chance. It could be great.

[Kuciwalker]

We could elect people to write it.

So now we are back to a Republic, at least in part. What we can vote on is decided by other people.

Or, the candidates could write their own questions. Questions for both candidates would have to be answered, so they'd be fair.

huh?

I just don't think that we should just dismiss the idea without giving it a chance. It could be great.

I don't think we should dismiss the idea [of completely screwing up the entire nation] without giving it a chance...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Berzerker


An easier way would be to allow voters to earmark their taxdollars for programs they want to support. If you want your money spent on the military, then you could earmark a certain percentage for the military, etc...

A couple of problems spring to mind but the most obvious would be the need to educate the public as to budgetry needs. e.g what % of tax dollars should be spent on military and what % on healthcare. I'm buggered if I know what the current allocations in my country are. If it was left to Joe Public to come up with the budgets there will be massive under and over funding.

Earmarking only a fraction of your tax dollars would be a pointless exercise, as any budget areas that are not sufficiently covered by the earmarking will be covered by the remaining unearmarked funds. The net effect is that the budget is decided by someone else and your tax dollars are aproppriated in the same proportions as before.