I just read the article, below, and thought of something. We are in a digital age of immediate information. A growing number of people feel dissassociated from their representatives and the government. We vote to elect individuals, and if provided a referendum, vote on that. But otherwise, we have to resort to town hall meetings, blogs, e-mails, phone calls and other venues to try to vent and get our point across to our legislators - the people who are supposed to be trying to do what WE want, not what THEY want. When we vote them into office, we hope they make the right decisions based on their prior records and/or what they tell us at the time. But after that, it's practically a crap shoot. The sense is that they're in control and not us. I listen to the news media and think, I don't really care or want to know what the politicians think, I want to know what the American people think. There's a lot of chatter, but no metric.
Well, call me crazy, but why can't there be one federal website where the major issues of legislative debate are posted, and the entire American public can vote their will online? (The same can be done for States as well as municipalities.) It is a representative democracy, is it not? It would be similar to a gallop poll, or any other poll, but would be open to the entire country, and run on a controlled but reasonable timetable. All issues and results would be visible to everyone. It would certainly be easier to then compare which politicians are representing us, and which are representing themselves. This would also provide our politicians with our collective views before they vote on a legislative measure.
This is not meant to be partisan in any way.
Thoughts?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/republican-leaders-launch-outreach-initiative-revive-party-image/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Konny, I like the concept in general. I think the biggest issue of tallying the votes would be the management process of genuine single votes without the possibility of tampering. I think if they had a full proof way of handling that, it would be an option.
ReplyDeleteUnless there is some other reason for not using this mechanism that would leave them at a disadvantage. A lot of times the general public is not that intelligent and simply giving them a vote on an issue will not bring about the desired results.
You and I had this discussion as part of the conversation where we thought it would be a good idea to certify the intelligence of a voter before he is allowed to vote in general election. That certification would very subjective (whose rules do you use). So you can easily get votes for things that politicians would be totally opposed to, like legalizing drugs.
I didn't read the article, but in response to your post: I don't see why this would stimulate any greater level of civic participation. In other words, you still have to overcome apathy.
ReplyDeleteThat politicians are accountable to their constituents is axiomatic. The implication is that the constituents are big business, unions, and a few powerful private groups i.e. the NRA, AIPAC etc. Any legislation must pass muster with the true constituents [and usually be reworked to their satisfaction - and rendered useless], before it is given a final vote in the Congress.
What causes apathy is impotence [not THAT kind] - why vote, when it doesn't make any difference? You can send a different representative, but he or she ends up doing the same thing. Paradoxically, greater voter participation is the only cure for special-interest driven politics.
Both political parties try to limit voter participation, under various guises. The smaller the number, the easier to manipulate the outcome.
Suggestions for change:
1. Term limits
2. Obligatory voting
3. Prohibit organizations from campaign contributions.