Forum Post: Replace the US House with direct vote by the people.
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 2:11 p.m. EST by jbm58
(65)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I want to propose a goal for OWS.
Carry your admirable process of concensus decision making to the next level.
We are still using a governing process designed for the 1700′s when it took ten days to travel by horse from Philadelphia to Washington. In the present age of IM and email why do we need district representatives? Why not let the people vote directly on bills brought to the Federal House? There are only about 10 significant votes per week . We can let the current house members keep their jobs for a while, but their new role is to introduce legislation and provide info for the voters so that they make educated decisions. Folks will take time out from watching DWTS each week to participate in real democracy. This will become the ultimate reality show including viewer participation.
Can the American people afford to allow a broken system to keep functioning as it is? We are aware that voting is useless if the person you are voting for does not fulfill his promises when he is elected. This is obviously a waste of time and effort and we accomplish nothing and this allow the cycle to continue.
The legal system has become so complicated and corrupt and it is done this way on purpose to confuse the average citizen requires simplication and less lawyers.
People in Congress should not get a paycheck after they no longer hold a seat in the Senate nor should they get any special benefits that is different from us. Limited terms is a must.
The bottom line is if we do not address the mechanisms that allow for corruption to exist we will never solve the problem.
I agree. However, replacing one chamber of our bi-cameral system would invite other unwanted effects. Specifically having the citizens voting on waaaay too much stuff. Instead, but in the same spirit, consider the following that may be more acceptable to a majority of citizens and afford the same results you suggest: Four reasons to let the citizen’s vote in National Referendums on major issues.
It’s our lives and we have the right to participate in the decision making process when policies and laws are being created that we all must live with. Elected officials are at best unfairly influenced by re-election, party loyalty, and concentrated interests, into making decisions on our behalf that with greater frequency are not in our best interest.
Those people elected to serve us have f ailed in their responsibility to do so and our democracy demands that we get involved. The most effective and “non-institutional” way to do this is to afford the citizens a fraction of the decision authority to accept or reject government’s major policy proposals on issues of vital national importance.
The potential for National Referendums on major issues would minimize the political game playing that the two major parties tend to engage in at our expense for political gain. National Referendums would act as a political antiseptic for the partisan bacteria that is taking over our democracy.
We are more than capable of weighing in on major decisions that affect our lives. This is proven by the fact that millions of Americans make difficult decisions on a regular basis in managing businesses, their family’s future, their finances, (consistently much better in this regard than the government ever has) career choices, healthcare issues, and a host of other challenges that are no more difficult to think through than just about anything our representatives are confronted with.
This is not a proposal to replace our present representative system. It is offered in addition to and on the invitation of Congress to invite the citizens to share in a portion of the responsibility in major decisions addressing issues of vital national importance.
Let the Reps keep their jobs for now, but their new role will be to craft legislation and provide concise explanations for the public that vote directly on each one. There are only about ten significant votes in the House per week, and they are only in session for about 25 weeks per year. If we spend 30 minutes on each one that is only 2.5 hours out of a 168 hour week. We spend more than that watching re-runs Tosh.0.
The theory is correct, but you have a better chance with article V of the constitution.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-ron-paul-or-anything-else-that-raises-your-i/
Not a fan of mob rule
I like the mob. The mob is just another name for the people that have to live with the lousy laws that our millionaire Reps in congress enact. The Reps are financially insulated from their mistakes. We have to live with them. Replace the house with direct vote and you will still have the Senate, Judiciary and Executive to protect individual rights as well as Federal priorities.
I think the system is fair at least in my state which is a delegate system. If enough people are active, then it is not hard to get rid of an incumbent who is doing a poor job.
We honestly have ourselves to blame. The American people have allowed this corruption to take place becuase we were not politically active.
Direct vote in the Hose is a good start at reducing the corruption.
Let the Reps keep their jobs for now, but their new role will be to craft legislation and provide concise explanations for the public that vote directly on each one. There are only about ten significant votes in the House per week, and they are only in session for about 25 weeks per year. If we spend 30 minutes on each one that is only 2.5 hours out of a 168 hour week. People fail to become politically active because they think that their one vote does not count. Now it will count every week when they vote on the issues.
well the founders argued against that and IMO they were pretty intelligent and I agree with the reasons that they had for not creating a straight democracy.
If we can bank online we can vote online.
Direct Democracy is a solution and a way occupy can evolve.
http://directdemocracynow.org/
Sounds like a direct democracy, lots of discussion here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-solution-developing-a-true-direct-democracy/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-demand-informed-direct-democracy-online-whos-wit/
Many times the majority of the people are not right or correct in their thoughts. If that was the case women would still be enslaved to the man and would have never been able to vote. That same logic could apply to the gay's, many people still are uncomfortable with us and would like to eliminate us from the process. We have much to offer people. I thank God for organized religion shutting it's doors to us. I found my own enlightenment and Oneness with God. I don't think if the majority of the people were so kind to us that I would have found such reverence in the Oneness that God wants for us all. I found my equal to God status as all love. Can you find your own way back to God if you were shut out. I share how I did it on my website. I don't ask for any donations or money, just conscious thought.
www.equaltogod.com Find your own way home, I found mine.
Michael,
The majority is not always the way to go. michael,
Yeah.........not to sure about that whole mob rule thing.....gonna have to decline that.
There already is a direct vote. It's called jury nullification: the right of citizens to judge the laws themselves when serving on juries. It was the original intent of the 6th Amendment and widely accepted until the mid twentieth century. Recent court decisions allow judges to lie to jurors about whether it exists and in the Kriho case a juror was prosecuted for nullifying a drug case. Juries overturned the Fugitive Slave Laws and Prohibition by rendering them unenforceable and it could be used to overturn the drug laws and the death penalty ( by convicting for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, in Texas it's trickier because they have different categories) . It's better to Google jury nullification or go the the FIJA website than to have me explain how to do it. In some states you have to avoid giving direct answers during voire dire (in Texas people can not serve on juries for capital crimes if they admit to opposing the death penalty).
California does that. Their particular form of government is done by voter referendum. And quite frankly if this country starts shaping up to look like CA, I'm going expat.
Create a new third party based on scientific surveys. http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.com/
The problem in CA is not the ballot question effort. They suffer from 20 years of un-checked government expansion. Now Brown is having to make extreme cuts in positions, pensions, and other benefits.
Technology will one day allow direct democracy of the sort you have in mind; it's a good idea but technology is still too unevenly distributed and vulnerable to security issues for such a practice to be fair and fraud-proof, even if the technology were mature enough to implement it tomorrow (and it's not).
The technology is here already, banks have used secure servers for a while and people trust online banking. This could be implimented now, having an open database would make hacking obvious as voters would be able to verify that their vote was accounted for. You could import the database and make your own pie chart in Excel if you feel like it. For the first time you would be able to actually verify that your vote was actually counted.
How do you know what happens once you shove your piece of paper in the ballot box?
Our current system is not fraud proof. We can manage credit card fraud pretty well, let's try it with the US House.
You got it right, the technology is here already, banks have used secure servers for a while and people trust online banking. This could be implimented now, having an open database would make hacking obvious as voters would be able to verify that their vote was accounted for. You could import the database and make your own pie chart in Excel if you feel like it. For the first time you would be able to actually verify that your vote was actually counted.
There are still more hurdles than you are recognizing. Even with access to public voting centers It would still be inherently biased against people without access to the Internet, which despite popular assumption is still the case for a significant number of people. People who can vote in their living room are more likely to vote than those who still have to trek to a public voting center of sorts.
Also, while online banking is a good example (there are many others) of how a 'massively multiplayer' system can be secure, in order to be anything more than a more secure ballot box, there would need to be fundamental change in the way we 'do democracy' here. In a true direct democracy, we would not need a blood and guts representative - a single person representing many and subject to corrupting influences. Rather we could all cast our votes on issues directly (you can pretty easily bribe one of a few hundred congressman, but you can't bribe a few hundred million). But that would require a radical overhaul of the democratic process - democracy 2.0 if you will. I'm in favor of it, but it requires a lot more than technology ( in fact, the technological aspect is probably the simplest part).
It would still be much easier and meaningful to vote for the overwhelming majority, as with online banking, you could vote using any phone. Yes we are disputing the fundamental way democracy has been expressed and yes it needs major overhaul. Implimentation pause a number of chalenges but regulations should not prevent the implementation of good ideas. In this case it will be more difficult because there will be strong opposition to shift the power from representatives (controlled by corporations) towards the population.
I do agree that it presents many challenges, we are faced with a powerfull political train controlled by cold cash.
It could start at municipal level with a candidate stating a similar system as a platform or from online referendums from the actual government.
The people occupying Wallstreet could start by registering their members and voting to have a common claim and focus their energies.
In any case we are using technologies in our everyday lives that makes communication very efficient and democracy is all about communication, people exchanging ideas and expressing their will. As technologies evolved: telegraph, radio, telephone, internet, IM etc., the democratic system stayed largely based on a text written in 1787, that has to change.
Well, I basically agree with everything you say here. In fact, one of my first posts here a few weeks back was in essence your last point about how we are still approaching the democratic system from the vantage point of the pre-technological, rural, agrarian society of 1787, and yes indeed, it has to change. I've always said that OWS should in large measure be about rethinking the way we do just about everything in the wake of modern technology, especially social networking technology, and the most obvious area that needs a serious upgrade is democracy.
Agreed, I find it comforting to know that these ideas are slowly making their way into the society. This OWS movement is a good thing but will loose steam and momentum as cold weather sets in and no common course of action is decided amongst the members. Again communication is the key, maybe they should start a democracy of their own based on these principles?
According to the CTIA-Wireless Association 85% of Americans have cell phones. They can be used to cast votes using the same secure process that they use to access their bank records by phone. We barely get 30% of the people to vote in a presidential election because it requires some effort. This plan will increase voter participation.
85% of the population don't have smartphones. Anyway, I don't doubt the technology is there, but as I say below the technology may be the easy part here. See my other post in this subthread.
You don't need a smartphone. A plain, cheap digital phone will do. BTW, the 85% number is as of 2007. The penetration is higher now.
The change in the House would be the first small step in the process described in your previous post. However it is possible now if a growing movement like the OWS or the Tea Party gets behind it and pushes. Right now the OWS lacks focus. Public opinion of the House is at an all time low. Now is the time to strike. We need a catchy name that everyone will chant. "Hand Over the House"? "This House is Your House this House is My House"? "Mi Casa Su Casa"? "Direct Vote Now!"?
Any ideas?
I think the concept needs to be first implemented on a small scale somewhere as a sort of 'proof of concept' demo. The next step would be to persuade some smaller, local jurisdictions to implement it. You really want to work the bugs out and discover as many of the unanticipated obstacles as painlessly as possible on a smaller scale. Ultimately, it will have to clear currently unimaginable legal and logistical hurdles. But it definitely can, should, and I think will be done.
As far as your proposed slogans go, how about 'The Big House'? That's as good a name as any for a 'virtual' nation sized 'house of representatives'. Anyway, of your slogans I like "Mi Casa Su Casa" best.
I like "The Big House"! It is where most of the current Reps should be spending their days anyway.
Small scale? How about starting with Local or State governments. It may also be easier to implement. Progressive Sates like Vermont might be a good place to start. Get Ben and Jerry on it.
I suggest you take a look at the definition of a democracy and how it eventually will turn into mob rule. Once the people realize they can vote themselves what ever benefits and entitlements they want, it will herald the end of democracy. It will create a failed state.
The people have already discovered that they can vote themselves largess to quote Tocqueville. But Tocqueville did not mean that state would fail. What he meant was that the people would become slaves to the state. They have no choice but to vote for the people in government to which they owe their very survival. 50% of the people in the US depend on the government for some or all of their income. Scary number.
in the name of good
hi to all of you. I am a Muslim when i saw American protests I realized They were awake a Different wake. Your move is good because you are looking for the real freedom we are whit you To reach your goal. I pray for you
send mail to me zohoor1991@gmail.com
in the name of good
hi to all of you. I am a Muslim when i saw American protests I realized They were awake a Different wake. Your move is good because you are looking for the real freedom we are whit you To reach your goal. I pray for you
send mail to me zohoor1991@gmail.com
think ofthe chaos of people voting on issues they don't fully understand. A vote on a highway bill, for example, takes into account the funds needd, the communities to be served, the effects on the enviornment, police, fire departments ... This is not to say that the representatives don't have their own motivations on making decisions but you cannot possibly expect everyone to delve so deeply on EVERY issue as to make an informed decission.
think ofthe chaos of people voting on issues they don't fully understand. A vote on a highway bill, for example, takes into account the funds needd, the communities to be served, the effects on the enviornment, police, fire departments ... This is not to say that the representatives don't have their own motivations on making decisions but you cannot possibly expect everyone to delve so deeply on EVERY issue as to make an informed decission.
Keep the representatives for now. Their new job would be to provide info to the voters to help them make decisions.
I don't believe that the average current US House Rep is any smarter than the average voter, and maybe has less time to actually study the issues.
This idea would create an oligarchy. Not very many people bother to vote right now. Only 24% of eligible voters age 18-29 bothered to vote in the 2010 mid-term elections that gave the Tea Party their representation. ( http://www.civicyouth.org/official-youth-turnout-rate-in-2010-was-24/ ) If voting is required even more often, then participation rates will be even lower. The country will be controlled by a politically-active minority. Fewer people would be represented if voter turnout rates go lower. That's the opposite of the supposed goal of this proposal. We don't have direct democracy in this country because it's unwieldy and impractical, and because it wouldn't necessarily lead to a system that's more inclusive.
Voters’ turnout in North America is constantly going down and people are disillusioned with the electoral process and feel it has now become a bit meaningless to vote. It is not enough for most people just to vote once every four years to elect someone that will later be corrupted or do whatever.
In order to create a better democracy, we need to be able to bypass at least some of the representative process. Modern communications is now allowing us to say what we want as individuals and we no longer need to be represented by people in parliament to take decisions for us. The role of the government should be to propose directions society could take but letting the people decide through referendums (direct democracy). This process, while alleviating corruption by removing some power to elected people, would allow some decisions that no political party would ever attempt to take because they would often be against the interests of influent lobby groups and powerful corporations (banks).
So far, the main argument against e voting taking on is revolving around confidentiality (anonymity) and hacking concerns. Those issues could be addressed by having an open e voting system by which the database, although anonymous, would be open allowing voters to verify that their vote is accounted for and accurate. The users would have a username identifying them in the database, enter their password and vote on an issue. Having an open database would allow voters to verify that their vote is accounted for and get the same results from the vote than the “official public results”. For the first time it would be possible for individuals to be certain that their voice was heard. Many referendums could be run simultaneously and in case of doubt you void the results and start again, it’s cheap. Looking at what is happening in the Arab world, this might be a way to quickly implement a form of democracy in places where there is nothing yet to support it. This system would allow the population to clearly voice their will and overrule some decisions taken by current and previous governments in order to tip the balance of power towards the majority. Your movement is very fertile ground for these ideas to take roots, there are highly educated motivated people in your group that could make this a reality and elaborate a system that would account for minority rights, server setups, phone interface etc. It could also (one can dream) create a whole new world where every voice can finally be heard and be as important towards decision making as anyone else. No matter the size of the voter’s bank account or number of influential friends: we have to take the power back.
This country is run by big corporations and big banks. Why should the corporations and banks be wasting so much money on lobbyist and the public waste so much money on congress, senate and president when it is obvious they don't run anything? Let's all save some money and cut Washington out. We can just take our direction straight from the corporations and banks. Take the money the public is wasting on a puppet government and what corporations are wasting on lobbyist and put it to better use.
The banks and corporations wouldn't have to waste so much money on lobbyists if we had direct democracy on issues like Glass-Steagall. Have you personally read the Glass-Steagall act? How about Dodd-Frank, have you read it? Do you understand it?
If you cut out our representatives, and the lobbyists, then the ONLY people who would be reading things like that and participating in the debate wold be bankers, traders, financiers, and people at corporations with vested interests in the outcome. That would make the situation even worse.
It would also require a complete rewrite of the entire US Constitution, which is simply not going to happen.
rewrite the constitution? I though we got rid of it a long time ago.
People do not vote now because its ineffective. Votes dont matter checks do. However when voting becomes something of a pain less people will vote. And for a democracy to work their has to be constant public voting or it will be really slow at doing anything.
A representative republic is the best option.
We HAVE a representative republic! You're arguing for something else!
This proposal would require a total re-write of the US Constitution, and it is therefore unrealistic and impractical.
Not necessarely, it could start by electronic referendums where all citizens would be asked to vote on important issues affecting the whole country. For example" the us governement is proposing to inject $300 Bn in order to recapitalised the banking system, do you agree to this proposal". It is just to have a public consultation system using efficient means of communication, we are stuck in a paradigm, a preconcived idea that things should be a certain way. We do not need representation anymore, we basically vote to determine the next opressor instead of pointing society in a better direction.
I could also imagine a municipal election where the candidate would state "direct democracy" as his/her platform. It could snowball from there.
It is well known that regulations are in the way of invention, having strict rules and boundaries makes change difficult, in that respect a constitution is a stomping block for any reform. I think that a set of rules written in 1787 should definitely be ammended to reflect the reality 224 years later...
It is very necessary and urgent
i Know we have a rep republic and no i am not arguing for something else.
Yes, you're arguing for direct democracy instead of a representative republic. They're two different things.
No i am not. Democracy always fail. Your failed logic is that only a few people would vote in a democracy and only a few people vote in a representative republic now. Which, in theory, has the same effect.
My argument is people do not vote now because most people know that votes do not matter. Once a politician is in office they do whatever they want and rarely what they say they were going to do. Thus you need to regain control of the govt. Changing govt types would be a bad idea and our selfishness over the decades has allowed politicians to get comfortable in doing whatever they please.
We would still be a Representative Republic with direct voting in the US House. The Representative's vote would be made directly by the people in their District. There would still be proportional representation, but without the influence of special interests, party, corporations, etc.
Under that system, the corporations and special interests would still exert most of their power in the same way that they do now: by framing the issues. If people don't have any power until a bill comes to a vote, then lobbyists will work as they do now, to keep certain bills from coming to a vote. Most of the power would still be concentrated in the hands of the people who write the bills, and who pick and choose which bills come up for debate and for votes.
The Reps would only keep their jobs at the outset. Over time they could be replaced by private consulting firms that would study the problems and craft legislation. if the private firms do a lousy job then the people fire them. This process would keep outside lobbyists from getting a foothold.
Other schemes are also possible. Can you think of any?
I you make it easy to vote (mobile phone, internet, wifi, tv) more people will participate. We manage credit card fraud now so why not expand that to voting. I recon that participation will increase, particularly when it becomes widely published in places like this blog.
Two questions:
1) How would you vote on this bill? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR02112:@@@L&summ2=m&
2) Who would write that bill? Somebody still has to frame the issues and draft legislation.
Let the Reps keep their jobs for now, but their new role will be to craft legislation and provide concise explanations for the public that vote directly on each one. There are only about ten significant votes in the House per week, and they are only in session for about 25 weeks per year. If we spend 30 minutes on each one that is only 2.5 hours out of a 168 hour week. We spend more than that watching re-runs Tosh.0.
Why would young Americans choose to spend 2.5 hours a week learning about the Federal Crop Insurance Act when that's competing with Tosh.0? And that isn't anywhere near enough time to understand even that one issue. So the electorate could never hope to be informed, because there are too many issues. You didn't say how you would vote on that bill -- because you have no idea how you would vote on that bill. You barely even know what it's about. There are lots of other bills like it in Congress right now that deal with lots of different issues.
And how would the debate on the bills work? How would amendment procedures work? If this web site is any indication, then opening up the debate to the masses will result in nothing getting accomplished. The bill about the Federal Crop Insurance Act would get hijacked by Zeitgeist cult members talking about resource-based economies, and then by anti-Fed people who would want to abolish federal crop insurance because of the word "federal" in it, and then ... you get the picture.
And if members of Congress keep their jobs crafting legislation, then they still have a lot of their power, because a lot of their power derives from framing the issues. How would you prevent special interests from bribing them to bury inconvenient issues? Global warming, for example?
Try working the problem form the other angle. It is always best to hire a Lawyer that tells you what you can do as opposed to what you can't. You have a good imagination and an understanding of the problem. Start with the flaws that you cited in your previous post and work on solutions. Then suppose that you have the brightest minds in our country working out all of the kinks. Thousands of them. A working direct vote system for the House could be developed after a few weeks of collaboration.
I don't have the answers, but I'll bet that you could answer a few. We can't go on the way we are now.
I you make it easy to vote (mobile phone, internet, wifi, tv) more people will participate. We manage credit card fraud now so why not expand that to voting. I recon that participation will increase, particularly when it becomes widely published in places like this blog.
A very tiny percentage of Americans pay attention to this site, and this is a good example. Too much noise. Too many issues. No focus. You're suggesting that millions of people who are barely capable of understanding that Sarah Palin is a celebrity who isn't fit for public office should take on the work of deliberating all of the facets of every issue. That means a nation of people who will ignore the substantial issues and focus on the juicy ones. It means that the situation in finance regulation would get a lot worse, because who would bother to get involved in the debate over banking regulation except for people in the banking industry? The only people participating in the debate would be people with an interest in the outcome, which does cut out lobbyists, but it makes the situation even worse by giving corporations direct control over legislation, not indirect through lobbying legislators.
There are not really a lot of issues if you just take a minute and count them up. Let the Reps keep their jobs for now, but their new role will be to craft legislation and provide concise explanations for the public that vote directly on each one. There are only about ten significant votes in the House per week, and they are only in session for about 25 weeks per year. If we spend 30 minutes on each one that is only 2.5 hours out of a 168 hour week. We spend more than that watching re-runs Tosh.0.
If you're proposing direct democracy, then yes there are a lot of issues.
For example: do you feel that the Federal Crop Insurance Act should be amended to make $15 million of CCC funds available for each fiscal year through FY2014 for agricultural management assistance to producers in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming?
In a direct democracy, you will have the ability to vote on everything. Do you want to be responsible for voting on everything? If you don't take the time to take an interest in the Federal Crop Insurance Act, then who do you think is going to take the time to take an interest?
Also, who is going to write the bills? If everybody is equal, then who gets to frame the issues? Those people will still be a vital part of the process, so how is direct democracy supposed to prevent those people from being bought? Somebody still has to write the bills that all of us are going to vote on.
I can handle 5 per week. That will take care of the current rate of law production. Let the current Reps keep their jobs for now, but their new role will be to propose new legislation and provide information for the voters so that they can make informed decisions. The Reps will still have to stand for election every two years. If they fail to propose well crafted legislation then they get voted out. And there is always Executive oversight to fight criminal activity and illegal influence.
Direct vote takes power from the Reps and puts it back in the hands of the people where it belongs. Think about your last car purchase. Many companies proposed alternatives that you had to vote on. In the end you made the choice and your choice forced the car companies to produce a better product. If a company fails to win a lot of votes then their company fails. The same would be true for our Reps. If your Rep fails to propose legislation that wins you fire them.
Have you actually read a bill in Congress lately? Serious question.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR02112:@@@L&summ2=m&
For some protester off of the street to claim that he can do the work of keeping informed enough to write a document like that in one day is ludicrous. It's like a newspaper delivery man saying that brain surgeons are redundant because he could cut tumors out of people's brains with tomato knife just as effectively.
Let the Reps keep their jobs for now, but their new role will be to craft legislation and provide concise explanations for the public that vote directly on each one. There are only about ten significant votes in the House per week, and they are only in session for about 25 weeks per year. If we spend 30 minutes on each one that is only 2.5 hours out of a 168 hour week. We spend more than that watching re-runs Tosh.0.
Make it easy and people will vote. Look at the participation on sites like this. People invest hundreds of hours having conversations like this. Technology will make direct democracy easy. Surly an institution like the US House that is supposed to represent the interests of local communities can be handled with a direct vote by the people.
I agree we don't need district representatives. I say direct vote by the people for the people. This site could start with such a system. Allow the people to vote on issues set forth.
Please read TOWARDS AN INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/fotopoulos/english/brbooks/brtid/IDBook.pdf
Why not just select congressturds the way we select juries, randomly for one case at a time?
I'm a firm believer of this direct vote. It breaks the relations between corporations and politicians and forces the politician to work directly for the district and the people they represent. If the nation gets to vote for a President, we should vote for the Bills. That way no matter how much money the rich may have, they can't buy up the votes of the 99%.
The founding of our Republican form of government is based upon some of the most brilliant thought and debate by Madison, Jay and many others,. The idea of a direct vote has caused great harm in many ways. I will speak to one, which is the 17th amendment with its adoption, in many ways it has produced many of the issues OWS opposes.
Now some wish to repeat the same mistake?
Name three issues OWS opposes that were caused by the 17 th amendment.
What is this a test or a blog? One could say it allowed influence peddling from corporate interests to flourish. No longer does a U.S. Senator truly represent their state's interests, but he or she represents special interests funding their campaign.
How would that be different if the Senate was elected by the State Leg? The corporate influence would just flow down to the State Senators.
No, it would not the cost would be astronomical. U.S. Senators were appointed by the State legislators. I as a citizen have much more influence electing my state Senator and Representative then I have in electing a U.S. Senator. Additionally, state campaign laws regulate donations not federal law.
There is already corporate influence on the State Legislatures. The cost of influence is low because the power is concentrated in the hands a few. Direct vote by the people is the best way to make the cost of influence prohibitive. Also, corporate influence is not confined to campaign contributions. Cushy jobs for relatives and after retirement to name a few.
BTW, you have exactly the same influence in electing your state senator as you do for your federal senator. One person one vote.
I never said there was not corporate influence in State Legislatures, but State’s have different campaign laws. A direct vote will never pass, it will destroy the Republic and turn this country into a Socialist Democracy. Is that what you support an European style Democracy?
I am in favor of taking the power out of the hands of a few millionaire Representatives and give it back to the people. This is a radically new approach to government that technology has only recently made possible. Where in Europe is there direct vote on anything? They are going the wrong way. The EU is a mess. Lincoln said that we did not fight the Civil War to preserve the Union, but to preserve this grand experiments of self governance.
Your suggest will require a constitutional amendment, that has no chance of being introduced in Congress or in any State Legislature. Technology wise anything can be hacked. Trust me, I’m an IT Director who’s be bombarded daily by the Chinese hackers
Our current system is hacked by voter fraud at the pols. We manage to do electronic transactions with credit cards now. Extend that process to voting. We should be doing this for general elections anyway.
We could avoid the need for a constitutional amendment if the elected Rep still actually casts the vote, but they do it based on the votes cast by their constituents. If they fail to follow the will of the people then they get voted out in the next election.
You know how many millions of dollars have been hack by electronic transfer. So it’s not a safe or foolproof. You know what is? No absente voting, vote in person, and dip your finger in purple dye when done. But we can’t have that it’s not convenient.
The will of the people is only as good as they understand the legislation being voted on. You are proposing a polling service for our elected representative? I hate to burst your bubble. Money is power and power is money, this does nothing to stop influence. Here is my suggestion.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/castrate-the-plutocrates/
If this happened, it would result in OWS like indecision... resulting in NOTHING happening.
its been 5 weeks+ and there are STILL no demands.
Demands are for terrorists. It will take some time to build consensus on a Strategy. The best so far imo, is 'Direct Democracy' with 'Participatory Economics'.
in that case, OWS will fizzle out because time will gradually decrease the impact of/interest in the movement
demands isnt a great way of putting it since OWS really doesnt have anything of worth, how about putting forth WHAT exactly everyone is demonstrating against?
We all know what we are demonstrating against. The list is a long one. Here's my proposed strategy for the movement. http://occupywallst.org/forum/fight-fire-with-fire/ This should give the OWS something of worth.
who is 'We' and how do you go about buying any business of worth?
who will run it? what experience will they have? who will benefit from it? will it only be people who put money into buy it or will you share profits with everyone in the world?
without answer these questions (without discounting human nature: ie: do i want to invest if i will nto see any return, or why should i invest to benefit my neighbor who is spending his money on a flat screen tv?) its not really feasible idea
We is everyone in the world. Any business that is in the black is of worth. We can elect/hire delegates to run it. Everyone in the world will benefit from it. It can start with donations (the occupiers in New York have already collected $500,000.) You couldn't have read my fight fire with fire post and some of the comments in that short of a time. Or you would realize that some of your questions are already answered. The video links can also help. But it all comes down to your value system. Do you want what's best for the entire world? What is best for all of us, is also what's best for you. :)
I read it before..
Everything you are saying presumes people are willing to put aside their human nature of 'me first' mentality. There are people who struggle to do this even for their own family, much less a stranger. One you overcome this (IMHO, insurmountable) obstacle.. you are faced with the realities of #s.
The fact you say that 'we is everyone in the world' just shows to show how naive this idea is. There are 7 billion people in the world, even if you raise 100x your 500k (so you have 500,000,000 you only have .0007 to give to everyone in the world). If you are going to say 'we will invest it'.. go see how many companies you can buy with 500 million dollars, and how long it will to take to earn a return that will simpily return your 500 million.. much less the 7billion to give everyone on the world a buck.
Investing isnt as easy as you make it seem
Believe it or not, but the 'me first' mentality is an adaptation and can be overcome. It is not true to everyone in the world. I would readily die to protect certain people. Also, I'm not saying that this idea will be implemented fast. It will take time. Ultimately it will give more power to YOU. You will be able to vote on issues, rather than just who will lead you. And no, I don't think it is naive. The logic of it is solid. You have to realize that your argument is based on Emotion. You Feel that people are too 'me first' for it to work. You Feel that there are too many people on the planet for it to work. Face your fears, and they will diminish. Never Trust Your Gut! It Will Lie To You!
you're calling my viewpoint emotional? I was addressing it in a logical fashion. I dont 'feel' anything, i put out concrete numbers, as FACTS. you havent stated anything that was backed by facts and you are turning around saying my argument is emotional?
until you can put some kind of logical argument together rather than saying 'human nature can be overcome, your viewpoint is naive and not realistic. Its not even conceptual since you havent shown any logical way of how it would work.
Yes, I'm calling your viewpoint emotional. Your simply unaware of your emotions. Your 'me first' nature is expressed because that's how you think. That's purely an emotional way of thinking. Your math proves nothing. Sure your number add up, but you completely write off investing the money as possibility because you Feel that investing isn't easy. How logical is that? And to suggest that anyone will receive money from the system before we purchase say, half the businesses listed on the NYSE is also illogical. You want some facts? This is the only one you need. Fact: People have become wealthy from owning businesses. That money could go to help everyone, rather than make one person rich. Or in the case of stocks, make a few people rich. We could set up a system to vote on what to do with the profits from the businesses.
oh.. i have a 'FEELING' i am being trolled..
bravo
Im confused.. I never said 'feel' anywhere. Is the only way you can make an argument is by putting words in my mouth?
'make money from the system before we purchase say, half the business listed on NYSE??' Can you even fathom how much that would cost? Do you know what market capitalization is? My math has proved nothing? If math doesnt prove anything, what will.. feelings??
I agree with your assertion that people become wealthy from owning businesses. The only way to get there is 1) start your own company or 2) have enough money to buy out a worthy company
You have suggested nothing that will accomplish either goal.
You want my feeling? I have a feeling you have a background in a 'soft' major (ie: non quantitative) maybe some kind of arts degree.. NOW i have expressed a feeling. You are free to prove or disprove.
^ Smiles, nods, and slowly walks away.
The votes would take place every Thursday night at 8:30 PM right after The Big Bang Theory.
There would be no delays, filibusters, or other stalling tactics. The direct vote would actually speed up the legislation over the current process.
Im having the same problem logging onto Facebook and cant find an email to contact customer service. Seems odd that Facebook was used as a crucial tool in the middle east to organize people to stand up for their rights and overthrow their dictators. Funny how now that protestors are gathering at Wall Street and around the world to demand Justice for plummitting the world economy into chaos that many people are having trouble logging on to facebook...this same senario happened in Iran when people starting organizing against their government. Seems to me that Facebook has been taken over by the.01% to prevent the 99% from organizing. I say to all protestor of the "Wall Street" movement around the world... organize your people...elect leaders for your groups and stand together world wide. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! It is time to take our countries back from the greedy and corrupt. For those of you who still have access to Facebook it is your duty to spread the word.
We_Are_The_99_Percent@planet.com
Folks lets stop beating around the bush and make corporations getting out of politics an official demand.
BTW, I believe the OWS is now officially a corporation.
I like corporations. They are just a group of diverse people working together toward a common goal. If they do a crappy job their competitors drive them out of business. Government can go on forever producing a lousy product and charge outrageous prices. They have now motivation for excellence. I wish Gov could be as accountable to consumers as are corporations.
Except that people in corporations don't work together.
People in Gov don't have a real good track record of working together. Remember "Connect the dots"? If poor communication in a corp hurts their business they get culled from the herd. When it happens in Gov we get the Iraq war.
I think we need to collectively buy some businesses and run them with a form of 'Participatory Economics'. Also we need a web-based 'Direct Democracy'. http://occupywallst.org/forum/fight-fire-with-fire/
Just take the money out of our elections and we will have a better chance of getting people you truly want to serve the public. Until we do that EVERYONE who gets elected GETS BOUGHT. Separation of Corporations and State please NOW.
I like corporations. They are just a group of diverse people working together toward a common goal. If they do a crappy job their competitors drive them out of business. Government can go on forever producing a lousy product and charge outrageous prices. They have no motivation for excellence. I wish Gov could be as accountable to consumers as are corporations
Yes this would eliminate the need for gerrymandering and all manner of problems. But it couldn't happen overnight. I think the steps needed to get there start at the municipal level. We need some progressive towns to adopt electronic direct democracy and to exercise the model at the local level first, and gradually build acceptance.
It will require a change to the constitution and folks in the House would have to vote themselves out of a job.
We can do whatever is in reason once we build a consensus.
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org ) this should get you excited.
All it takes for inequality to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing.
All people are created equal and that is the last time that statement is true.
It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
Time for Politicians to understand they are serving the country, NOT carving out a career. I feel strongly that the terms for all congressional offices should be changed.
Senate 1 six year term House 1 four year term.
No jobs for life and no pensions, maybe health benefits but that's it.
Then, ban all lobbying of Congress, and candidates for all federal offices, including President funded, w/a fixed amount paid by the government. NO campaign contributions from any person or business.
Just my thought.
Fathntruch you are trimming around the edges. We have seen huge technological change in the last 20 years. It is time for huge change in the way we operate government. The OWS folks have it right. Lincoln said about the Civil War that it was necessary not to save the Union but to save the great US experiment that showed people can govern themselves. It is time for direct democracy. Start with a big change. Get rid of the House.
mob rule essentially
I like the mob. The mob is just another name for the people that have to live with the lousy laws that our millionaire Reps in congress enact. The Reps are financially insulated from their mistakes. We have to live with them. Replace the house with direct vote and you will still have the Senate, Judiciary and Executive to protect individual rights as well as Federal priorities.
Im having a problem logging onto Facebook. Seems odd that Facebook was used as a crucial tool in the middle east to organize people to stand up for their rights and overthrow their
dictators. Funny how now that protestors are gathering at Wall Street and around the world to demand Justice for plummitting the world economy into chaos that many people are having
trouble logging on to facebook...this same senario happened in Iran when people starting organizing against their government. Seems to me that Facebook has been taken over by the.01% to
prevent the 99% from organizing. The 99% must organize before Occupy Wall street becomes a faded memory... organize your groups around the world...elect leaders to stand together
world wide. DO NOT GIVE IN!!!... DO NOT GIVE UP!! It is time to take our countries back from the greedy and corrupt. For those of you who still have access to Facebook it is your
duty to spread the word.
Please post this on your facebook profile and forward this email.
We_Are_The_99_Percent@planet.com
Who would bring the bills? Do you have any idea of the research necessary to bring a bill to the House for consideration?
There are no need for bills. You can directly vote on the issues at hand.
Let the House members keep their jobs for now. Their new role will be to present bills and provide guidance for the voters. Not unlike the current Ballot Question process in many States. But in the end the people get to decide on each new law.
We need to replace the Senate which has become the American version of the old English House of Lords.
To remain a republic we need the Senate. Small State like RI and WY would be ignored and have no say in government.
Look at how many of us don't bother to vote, register to vote, or even read simple material...how large a portion of us would end up just letting someone else explain an issue or even just trust them because we agree on most other important issues, or not participating at all? I want better representation, but legislating is a full time job, and how many have free time to pile that on top of other responsibilities?
Something to fix would be district manipulation by whatever party happens to be in power. Use computer programs to form diastricts by population alone, rather than allowing the current system set up to overpower dissenting voters.
There are about ten significant votes in the house per week. Most bill votes are no-brainers. Remember US Reps are not exactly the best and brightest and they seem to somehow manage the work. Consider how long it takes you to decide on a ballot question when you vote now; only a few minutes. People in the US watch 35 hours of TV a week. Take 30 minutes to participate in your future. As soon as people realize that their next door neighbor is making decisions for them they will vote like crazy.
It actually takes me a long time to make decisions on voting because I do research starting with the backgrounds and associations of the people who initiated it and those who are both for and against it, as well as any history on the subject. Mindless voting is bad whether it is by representative, or direct voting.
For example, first bush was known to hunt on the king ranch in Texas as VP. The king ranch has board members. Some of those board members also sat on boards at banking institutions. The board members from the banks also sat on boards for the Florida sugar industry. Jeb Bush became gov of Florida and sided with the sugar industry over environmental concerns of the majority of floridians.
How many of our current Reps are making mindless votes now? Many of them fail to even show up for the role-call. The only way to prevent the activity in your Bush example above is to steal their power. Taking the House and giving it back to the people is a great first step. Look at the power of the Ballot Question in CA. Direct voting by the people has made huge changes there.
Great Idea
http://jamesdamiano.yolasite.com/
With all due respect, "most bill votes are no-brainers" to really only few constituents because most people have become complacent with the idea of representation. Additionally, it is probably easier to let 435 people hash out their differences rather than 150 million + voters. I mean, you have several thousand in protests around the country who can't even get along with themselves or the decisions being made - and acting and speaking out in a not-so-good fashion... imagine 150million+... The idea fits in with a utopian society where people actually care -- and right now, people don't care (and probably won't ever care) unless the vote is who the next DWTS b-list star to get booted is. One thing they can do is repeal the 17th amendment and place the vote for Senate seats back into the hands of state legislators who are much closer to constituents and stop letting citizens directly elect them. That would help greatly.
How much worse would it be? Have you looked at the approval rating lately for congress? Keep the Senate, Judiciary and Executive but give the house back to the people where it belongs. The only reason that we have representatives is because 200 years ago it was not practical for a direct vote. Now we can do it.
"How much worse would it be?"
That's a loaded question and here's why. Right now, you have 435 house members who can legislate - and oftentimes, those in the minority of any particular topic are actually represented - leading to favorable legislation. If you remove this representation and move toward a "Democracy" type situation in which people have a direct vote, then the majority will most likely always win against the minority. That does not bode well for minority groups (LGBT, Pro-Choice, etc). The system is not perfect, but representation ensures minority representation has a true say in a matter (even if they don't win). I would argue the point that if not for representation, many of the advances made for minority groups would still not have happened even to this day.
Back to my other point, Senatorsdo not represent the interests of the states (like they should) because citizens have a direct vote in their seats... and look what that has accomplished. If the state legislators elected them (as was originally designed into the Constitution), then the Senators would be held to account for their decisions as it applies to the states (and citizens of the states who have easier access to their state legislators).
Senators must be directly elected by the people of the State. Do not further insulate them from the people they sere by injecting another layer of bureaucracy .
Currently (and for the last 35 years) the US House votes for the most part along party lines. It is majority rule now! Only on rare occasions do do Reps cross the aisle on controversial issues. That is the problem.
Eliminating the House would also solve one of the other problems that you have cited; voter apathy. This change will get people involved with government. It would facilitate a change in attitude.
Actually, Senators were conceived to represent the states directly and the people indirectly -- a concept that was mucked when the 17th amendment was passed. Representatives are the ones who are elected to directly represent the people.
It is majority rule now due to partisan politics - where representatives are actually NOT doing their jobs in representing their constituents. Many votes are bullied and lobbied from the top down - forcing the hands of the Reps and that is evident in almost every vote that passes. When representatives are held accountable by not being re-elected for 20 terms, then maybe we can make headway. People can't handle a direct vote on legislation right now because they aren't even smart enough to vote out self-serving representatives.
Not only that, when you go to a more mob rule state of "Democracy", the perpensity for disenfranshisement and violent response goes way up... Look what "Democracy" has done historically throughout the world... Hell, look at what it's doing to fracture the OWS movement in a small park in Manhattan... magnify that effect on the scale of the entire voting populace -- no thanks.
Change the House to direct vote and the two party system disappears (at least in that body). How do you bully someone in the privacy of their own Ipad?
People suddenly get pretty smart when they have to focus on an issue. We are are two party system and 40% of the people vote based on party. You could run a house fly and they would vote for it.
I like the mob. Mob is just another name for the people that have to live with the decisions made by millionaire Reps. They are financially protected from their mistakes. The early days of the Republic were pretty mob-like. Fist-Fights on the Senate floor, duels, and political cartoons that make today's seem sheepish. Democracy is messy particularly the early stages as seen at the OWS; or just ask the folks in Bagdad.