Home› A Moving Train

Why Not???

he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
edited June 2011 in A Moving Train
Here's a revolutionary (but common sense) idea; I think it's time to abolish politicians entirely and let everbody participate in self-government via Internet. We needed representatives in the 18th Century, because we couldn't all go to Washington. We can have a vote weekly online and only need a small administrative government to carry out the tasks we vote on, like building roads, feeding the hungry, bringing home the troops, spending the military budget on feeding more hungry people everywhere on Earth, firing 32% of the cops, etc.

A true democracy by the people, for the people, of the people. Just click of the mouse away.

WHY NOT????
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Res Ipsa LoquiturRes Ipsa Loquitur Posts: 55
    Because hackers and those who control the internet would create skynet and destroy us all
  • Prince Of DorknessPrince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    To be honest... people are too easily swayed without having all the facts at their disposal.

    Call something that "saving children from harm" act and then bury a "we'll feed them poison apples" line and people will still vote for it without reading it. I don't WANT the People Of Walmart to have such a direct vote. I don't want economic issues to be left over to a "ZERO TOLERANCE NO MORE SPENDING" mindset and have people who don't understand economic issues to get a direct say.

    It would be a disaster.
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    The best reason for "why not?" is ...... the Yahoo "comments" section. 8-)

    Take any hot topic news story, read the comments section, and you will realize what chaos this would lead to. :D
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Plus, imagine the power of influence that Stephen Colbert would have! :shock:
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    the worlds pace of politic's wouldn't let that happen.

    Godfather.
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    he still stands wrote:
    Here's a revolutionary (but common sense) idea; I think it's time to abolish politicians entirely and let everbody participate in self-government via Internet. We needed representatives in the 18th Century, because we couldn't all go to Washington. We can have a vote weekly online and only need a small administrative government to carry out the tasks we vote on, like building roads, feeding the hungry, bringing home the troops, spending the military budget on feeding more hungry people everywhere on Earth, firing 32% of the cops, etc.

    A true democracy by the people, for the people, of the people. Just click of the mouse away.

    WHY NOT????

    I like this idea more than having representatives, so long as the full text of the bills are presented before every vote-- maybe when the people are actually personally presented with 2000 pages of legalese bullshit, there would be a greater realization that most of these proposed laws contain some seriously shady content, and there would be a lot more "nay" voting. It seems it would be harder for special interests to lobby in this type of system-- do they try and buy individual votes? However, the door would be open to even more serious fraud than what exists right now if the vote tallies were ever altered behind the scenes. At least with a public roll call in the current system, it's hard to alter the vote count.

    I always hear people talk about how we've evolved enough to no longer need religion. I can't wait for the day where humanity has progressed to the point that it no longer needs government. It probably will not be in my lifetime but I hope it happens someday.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    Here's a revolutionary (but common sense) idea; I think it's time to abolish politicians entirely and let everbody participate in self-government via Internet. We needed representatives in the 18th Century, because we couldn't all go to Washington. We can have a vote weekly online and only need a small administrative government to carry out the tasks we vote on, like building roads, feeding the hungry, bringing home the troops, spending the military budget on feeding more hungry people everywhere on Earth, firing 32% of the cops, etc.

    A true democracy by the people, for the people, of the people. Just click of the mouse away.

    WHY NOT????

    nope...gives the majority too much power...minorities will be run roughshot over all others...affirmative action...not a a chance...gay marriage...no way...rich people...toast...this is simply the next step needed to have the religious take over as far as I am concerned and that terrifies me.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Intresting, the system is so corrupt and paid for already, i agree why not? I think it would take a revolution, unless our government were to introduce this kind of vote on a small level and nothing to important and then let it evolve.
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    so many lie on the internet... oh wait.... perfect place for politicians
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Tyranny of the majority, hell no.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,436
    Hmmm,

    a)status quo- a bunch of politicians who mostly follow the money trail vs.

    b)government by internet in which decisions are made a populous that is increasingly poorly educated and gets its information from TV and blogs.

    Toss of the coin.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • Who PrincessWho Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    About 6 years ago the Texas Legislature (OK, I know you're already snickering) got the bright idea that they could cut state spending by eliminating the offices where people applied for Medicaid, food stamps, TANF, and unemployment by requiring that everyone apply online. What the state learned when they tried to implement this is that poor people frequently didn't have internet access, much less computers. (As someone who works in social services, I can add that sometimes they don't even have phones.) It was a colossal disaster and didn't save any money, particularly when they had to hire more employees to replace the ones who'd quit their jobs in anticipation of layoffs.

    If you're wondering if this train of thought has a caboose, well, just sayin that there actually are people who don't have computers with internet access and not by choice. It would be a government according to economic status, which I believe the OP is trying to avoid.
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    There would have to be some sort of assurance or effort to get everybody who wants to vote a chance to do so.
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    Not everyone has access to the internet and the sad fact is a majority of Americans don't do enough research to vote properly, myself included. Humans want leaders. It kind of evolved with us.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,436
    Here's another idea: Why not NO president? Every president we've had as long as I can remember (don't ask how long that is!) has been hated by one side or the other. So why not keep the legislative and judicial branches as they are and have the executive branch be made up of an elected committee from all sides (the only requirement being that they all have to read de Tocqueville, Vonnegut and Twain). Why should so much power and emphasis be place on one person? If we need some figurehead, let's just have a king or queen- or call it something else- The Grand and Wonderful Figurehead of the Good Old USA. Or the Grand Poobah or whatever. Just somebody to stand up and look good and be nice and not get in the way of everybody else going about the business of life.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • zarocatzarocat Posts: 1,901
    he still stands wrote:
    Here's a revolutionary (but common sense) idea; I think it's time to abolish politicians entirely and let everbody participate in self-government via Internet. We needed representatives in the 18th Century, because we couldn't all go to Washington. We can have a vote weekly online and only need a small administrative government to carry out the tasks we vote on, like building roads, feeding the hungry, bringing home the troops, spending the military budget on feeding more hungry people everywhere on Earth, firing 32% of the cops, etc.

    A true democracy by the people, for the people, of the people. Just click of the mouse away.

    WHY NOT????

    If somehow everyone became & acted responsibly/ethically then this idea would flourish. But as other posters have stated, it's about sides. I'm on this side & you on that one. Sit back & think about that behaviour for a moment from the NFL tickets to the free vacations these scum bags hand out for voters/influence. Now detach the responsibility of showing up to vote and you can imagine the disaster. The extra influenced votes. It's a joke anyway. Truthfully, in my opinion, the entire system has to come down & be restructured. Maybe even a new language to tell you the truth. I don't even think I can comprehend what I'm trying to say here but ...
    1996: Toronto
    1998: Barrie
    2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
    2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
    2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
    2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
    2006: Toronto X2
    2009: Toronto
    2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
    2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
    2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
    2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
    2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
    2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
    2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto
    2023: Chicago X2
    2024: New York X2
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Some of your reasons "why not";

    access to the internet - a very small problem. Voting stations (computers with internet) are made available in every city/town/village/etc.

    security - it can be made secure. Will need a task force (regulated by a 3rd party) to administer.

    people aren't SMART enough to vote on specific issues - Really? We have to move beyong this lizard-brain logic. If people aren't smart enough to vote on specific topics, why are they smart enough to vote for leaders who will do all the voting for them? Seems like they are likely to vote in a shmuck, liar, or thief who will vote for his/her personal interests and not for the interests of the people... oh wait.... that sounds familiar...

    gives the majority too much power - yeah, one voice, one vote, a TRUE DEMOCRACY... too much power for the "majority"... Do we all understand the basic tenets of democracy here? If so, and we say that the "majority" has too much power, are we saying that we prefer totalitarianism which will allow power for the minority?!?!

    misinformation (mostly via internet) will sway votes - similar to the issue of people not being "smart" enough. There will always be interest groups trying to sway your vote. The issues to be voted on will be put into a easy to read, short, specific language. It will be administered by a task force of linguists and regulated by a 3rd party that represents a cross section of the political spectrum.

    .........

    I think you people just want to be led. I don't need leaders. WE don't need leaders... We have the technology to be involved with every initiative, bill, law, etc.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    he still stands wrote:

    gives the majority too much power - yeah, one voice, one vote, a TRUE DEMOCRACY... too much power for the "majority"... Do we all understand the basic tenets of democracy here? If so, and we say that the "majority" has too much power, are we saying that we prefer totalitarianism which will allow power for the minority?!?!
    I think you people just want to be led. I don't need leaders. WE don't need leaders... We have the technology to be involved with every initiative, bill, law, etc.
    On issues like minority rights, it would be a problem. Do you really think we'd have gotten rid of Jim Crow in the south of there was direct democracy?
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    keeponrockin wrote:
    he still stands wrote:

    gives the majority too much power - yeah, one voice, one vote, a TRUE DEMOCRACY... too much power for the "majority"... Do we all understand the basic tenets of democracy here? If so, and we say that the "majority" has too much power, are we saying that we prefer totalitarianism which will allow power for the minority?!?!
    I think you people just want to be led. I don't need leaders. WE don't need leaders... We have the technology to be involved with every initiative, bill, law, etc.
    On issues like minority rights, it would be a problem. Do you really think we'd have gotten rid of Jim Crow in the south of there was direct democracy?

    Yes. It (repealing of racist laws) was a federal measure that had overwhelming support from a nation-wide perspective.... even back in the 50s.

    “A government is like fire, a treacherous servant, but a dangerous master.” - George Washington

    "Despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor. Equally arbitrary, cruel, bloody, and in every respect diabolical." - John Adams

    "The best government is the least government." - Thomas Jefferson

    so, you see, there is nothing really radical or original about my thinking. I've got the first three Presidents of the USA on my side.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    he still stands wrote:
    Some of your reasons "why not";

    access to the internet - a very small problem. Voting stations (computers with internet) are made available in every city/town/village/etc.

    security - it can be made secure. Will need a task force (regulated by a 3rd party) to administer.

    people aren't SMART enough to vote on specific issues - Really? We have to move beyong this lizard-brain logic. If people aren't smart enough to vote on specific topics, why are they smart enough to vote for leaders who will do all the voting for them? Seems like they are likely to vote in a shmuck, liar, or thief who will vote for his/her personal interests and not for the interests of the people... oh wait.... that sounds familiar...

    gives the majority too much power - yeah, one voice, one vote, a TRUE DEMOCRACY... too much power for the "majority"... Do we all understand the basic tenets of democracy here? If so, and we say that the "majority" has too much power, are we saying that we prefer totalitarianism which will allow power for the minority?!?!

    misinformation (mostly via internet) will sway votes - similar to the issue of people not being "smart" enough. There will always be interest groups trying to sway your vote. The issues to be voted on will be put into a easy to read, short, specific language. It will be administered by a task force of linguists and regulated by a 3rd party that represents a cross section of the political spectrum.

    .........

    I think you people just want to be led. I don't need leaders. WE don't need leaders... We have the technology to be involved with every initiative, bill, law, etc.


    you are simply being disagreeable...you cannot believe that a simple majority is all that is needed. Basically what would happen is that the needs of the urban majority would always supercede the needs of the rural americans. Conservation efforts, rights for minorities, etc would all be decided by the majority...well if that is the case prepare for full out revolution and the forming of about 20 new countries. If you think representative democracy has flaws you are free to think that, but to have true one person one vote democracy would be a disaster. Sometimes the public needs to be saved from itself.
    Tell me what would happen to the wealthy if the majority were allowed to vote on tax law?
    Who would work if you could just vote yourself money from the government?
    where would any growth in the economy go if there was no incentive to profit after the majority of people set the corporate tax codes?
    How quickly would we have given women the right to vote? or african americans for that matter...rules/laws would constantly be changing every time some little girl fell in a well.
    What you describe would work fine in a country of 50 people, but in a country as diverse and expansive as the USA it would be a nightmare.
    You say you don't need a leader...that is fine, go be one...
    **** to your last entry...
    I wonder what would happen if we took one sentence from every person and made that their legacy
    "A wise and frugal Government, which shall retrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."
    -thomas jefferson
    So looks like he was talking about the focus of government in your above post, not the actual size.

    Your john adams quote makes no sense to your argument...basically he is saying all people in power no matter how you do it will be oppressive...well I would rather a representative democracy be oppressive than a simple majority that could change the rules as they see fit.

    State's rights have been on the decline over the years, and with this they would be abolished...what would be the point in city and state government? who would collect the taxes? how would anything get done if we always had to wait for a vote?

    Your idea sounds great, but unfortunately in practice would fall apart quickly
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    so, I'm not going to read all that because I don't have time (and I'm lazy), but if I were to read it, could I surmise that your point is "the people do not know what is best for them and need someone else to tell them."???
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    edited June 2011
    he still stands wrote:
    so, I'm not going to read all that because I don't have time (and I'm lazy), but if I were to read it, could I surmise that your point is "the people do not know what is best for them and need someone else to tell them."???
    no, nice discussion
    ***
    nice to see that someone arguing for the one person one vote is too lazy to read something
    Post edited by mikepegg44 on
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    he still stands wrote:
    so, I'm not going to read all that because I don't have time (and I'm lazy), but if I were to read it, could I surmise that your point is "the people do not know what is best for them and need someone else to tell them."???

    So you are too lazy to read a post of a few hundred words, and people are going to read bills that are hundreds of pages written by lawyers?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    he still stands wrote:
    Here's a revolutionary (but common sense) idea; I think it's time to abolish politicians entirely and let everbody participate in self-government via Internet. We needed representatives in the 18th Century, because we couldn't all go to Washington. We can have a vote weekly online and only need a small administrative government to carry out the tasks we vote on, like building roads, feeding the hungry, bringing home the troops, spending the military budget on feeding more hungry people everywhere on Earth, firing 32% of the cops, etc.

    A true democracy by the people, for the people, of the people. Just click of the mouse away.

    WHY NOT????

    I've been saying this forever. There really isn't a big need for representatives anymore.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    know1 wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    Here's a revolutionary (but common sense) idea; I think it's time to abolish politicians entirely and let everbody participate in self-government via Internet. We needed representatives in the 18th Century, because we couldn't all go to Washington. We can have a vote weekly online and only need a small administrative government to carry out the tasks we vote on, like building roads, feeding the hungry, bringing home the troops, spending the military budget on feeding more hungry people everywhere on Earth, firing 32% of the cops, etc.

    A true democracy by the people, for the people, of the people. Just click of the mouse away.

    WHY NOT????

    I've been saying this forever. There really isn't a big need for representatives anymore.


    can you explain why? seems the last guy is a bit too lazy
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • markin ballmarkin ball Posts: 1,075
    he still stands wrote:
    keeponrockin wrote:
    he still stands wrote:

    gives the majority too much power - yeah, one voice, one vote, a TRUE DEMOCRACY... too much power for the "majority"... Do we all understand the basic tenets of democracy here? If so, and we say that the "majority" has too much power, are we saying that we prefer totalitarianism which will allow power for the minority?!?!
    I think you people just want to be led. I don't need leaders. WE don't need leaders... We have the technology to be involved with every initiative, bill, law, etc.
    On issues like minority rights, it would be a problem. Do you really think we'd have gotten rid of Jim Crow in the south of there was direct democracy?

    Yes. It (repealing of racist laws) was a federal measure that had overwhelming support from a nation-wide perspective.... even back in the 50s.

    “A government is like fire, a treacherous servant, but a dangerous master.” - George Washington

    "Despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor. Equally arbitrary, cruel, bloody, and in every respect diabolical." - John Adams

    "The best government is the least government." - Thomas Jefferson

    so, you see, there is nothing really radical or original about my thinking. I've got the first three Presidents of the USA on my side.

    Since you are bringing the founding fathers into this why don't you look up why they decided on a representative government. I'm sure it wasn't because of technological limitations.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Truly, a better solution would be to localize government a lot more, not federalize it. It would also be better to finally recognize this country as a true constitutional republic, NOT a democracy, where no one's rights are to be infringed upon despite the will of the majority. Tyranny of the majority has been happening since the beginning.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Self-government is nearly impossible. A dream for some, but big picture wise, an absolute disaster in the making. Especially the US, with the sheep relying on govt to tell them what to do, where to go, what to eat, how to dress. Can you imagine the absolute chaos of this literally happening?

    I agree with Vinny. Local government growing, federal govt shrinking.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    real quick... (working)

    when did anyone say that this was something that would only be done at a federal level? We don't need Fed or State legislators and can do away with both. We can mimize the size of all scopes of government.

    If the problem is that there are TOO MANY things to read and understand, that is a g'damn symptom of the underlying problem!!! Too many legislators pushing paper around performing repetitive and meaningless tasks.

    People, we can largely govern ourselves by way of an absolute democracy. One voice, one vote. Technology now makes it a realistic possibility. A purely administrative government will probably be necessary for a few hundred more years, but we don't need thousands of legislators and the police state to protect the legislators' karass.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    he still stands wrote:
    real quick... (working)

    when did anyone say that this was something that would only be done at a federal level? We don't need Fed or State legislators and can do away with both. We can mimize the size of all scopes of government.

    If the problem is that there are TOO MANY things to read and understand, that is a g'damn symptom of the underlying problem!!! Too many legislators pushing paper around performing repetitive and meaningless tasks.

    People, we can largely govern ourselves by way of an absolute democracy. One voice, one vote. Technology now makes it a realistic possibility. A purely administrative government will probably be necessary for a few hundred more years, but we don't need thousands of legislators and the police state to protect the legislators' karass.


    but you aren't addressing the issues raised...what happens to minorities?
    we have a large bureaucracy and to shrink it and give rights back to states and local governments is much more useful than eliminating representative government...I would invite anyone who thinks one person/one vote will work to shadow me in my office for two weeks and then tell me all these issues can be solved by simply one person/one vote.
    Do you think allowing the people to vote on things directly would eliminate useless bill propositions? do you ever work with the public? Everyone has a bone to pick, everyone has a platform and there would be MORE things to read and go through.
    It is very odd for me to be arguing "for" government, but what you are asking for would be a nightmare and drive us backwards quickly.

    edit*** put representative govt in the wrong place
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
Sign In or Register to comment.