Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Direct Democracy Via the Internet

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 20, 2011, 7:41 p.m. EST by Nulambda (265)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here is an idea, curious to what the forum thinks.

The number one problem we, the people see is that we do not control the money in politics, thus we have no say in what policies the government implements. I suggest, rather than having a house and senate to represent us and where our tax dollars go, why not eliminate this beuracracy all together?

When the house and senate were created it was necessary because transportation and communication lacked the ability for the citizenry to be aware of the politics of the day. Hence we elect someone to represent our interest. Today this is no longer the case.

Also, what is the true power of government? Getting to decide how your taxes are spent.

What if, instead of electing someone to making this decision for me and us, I and we are allowed to decide where our taxes go?

For example, let us say everyone pause 10% of their income (arbitrary number). Then, once a year they are allowed to decide where their money is spent. So, if I want 5% of my taxes to go to education, 3% to social programs, and 2% to security, that is where they go. Then, when we add up all the citizenries tax designations, this directly effect our policies. If most of the money ges to education, that is our priority. If it goes to security, that is our priority.

The executive branch's function is to insure that the public's taxes goes where it selected to go. Local governments are in charge of legislative issue. And the Congress is rendered impotent.

I also see the Internet as an easy way for us to vote on our tax distribution.

Like I said, it is just an idea and I am looking forward to your comments. Especially the trolls! :) They provide the best challenge for my thinking. I appreciate you guys more than you know!!!!

172 Comments

172 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by LSN45 (535) 3 years ago

What we really need is real, loop-hole free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM if we are to break the cycle of legalized bribery we have today. It needs to be THE main goal of these protests.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I rather the lobbyist lobby me directly for my tax dollars, rather than someone who represents me....

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

ya! :)

[-] 1 points by jacopo (5) 1 year ago

An Italian group of developer, all volunteer have produced an open source online decisional platform for e-democracy. I am the internationalization manager and would like to invite to test the platform. We have the platform in english and we need tester to check if is working fine please visit www.airesis.eu and www.airesis.it Please come to check it

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

a Direct democracy is a great idea for small communities but not the whole nation its like two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner

good idea just not for the whole nation

[-] 1 points by Xerographica (1) 2 years ago

Tax choice is a great idea...but it's not easy to find via a Google search. So I took the liberty of giving it a Google friendly label...pragmatarianism.

Here's the Wikipedia article... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_choice

...and my blog entry with a list of other pages on the topic... http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2012/08/choose-where-your-taxes-go.html

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 3 years ago

Great post.

To all the trolls and naysayers here:

This is the 21st Century!

For the first time in recorded history, we have the technological means to make Direct Democracy a reality:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/approaching-a-metapolitical-discourse/

http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse

Also, check out these posts:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/direct-democracy/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/global-quorum/

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 3 years ago

I like your idea. Let's do it.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 3 years ago

It's time to change: Politics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M69LvvIypWM

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 3 years ago

The only problem i have with anything done on the Internet is that it can be hacked otherwise good idea.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

if we voted with our names, the results could be publicly verified

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 3 years ago

Still you can't hold down techno-savvy hackers if I vote online I have to be largely convinced that my vote will count. And second I like voting in privacy I don't want my name associated with my vote quite frankly it is no ones business who I vote for.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

government is everybody's business

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

representatives were necessary before mass communication

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

looks like we (edit) are winning:

http://e2d-international.org/

[-] 1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 3 years ago

America was never intended as a democracy. It is a republic and can only be a republic. Please read a history book.

[-] 1 points by AnonDan (27) 3 years ago

Who said we can't change!?!? Why can't we be the new founding fathers of this land? Why the dead always speak for us. What if we know more??? What if their shit is outdated and need t be changed? I can't promise happiness but at least I can tell you to fucking pursue it via the net!!! They can't do shit for us 'cos they are dead!!!

[-] 1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 3 years ago

Reinventing the wheel eventually leads to the same conclusions. They weren't any smarter or dumber than us. History is repetitive. Using the net is not good. New thing called a power cord... if not that, hackers and a terrible thing called psychosis.

[-] 1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 3 years ago

IMPRACTICAL. People are lazy and greedy. What you seek is Socialist/Communist. I'd give that government 2 days before someone takes high power and corrupts it. America is a republic, not a democracy for a reason. I assume you haven't read a history book.

[-] 1 points by SvenTheBarbarian (84) from Phrao, Chiang Mai 3 years ago

I truly believe in this concept but in a more fluid and foundational way, I suggest issues can be raised any time and be voted on any time in with a well defined set of rules. All areas of government are subject to the minority rules format of a direct democracy (constitutional rights can remain), and by foundational I mean the system should only create the environment for a direct democracy and nothing more, then let society build what they choose on top of it. I have a forum running at:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-solution-developing-a-true-direct-democracy/

[-] 1 points by unlabeled (112) 3 years ago

We won't even need to have TAXES if we collectively buy businesses. http://occupywallst.org/forum/fight-fire-with-fire/

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

Good idea.... Like to hear more

[-] 1 points by StephenSpector (1) 3 years ago

The message from the people of Occupy is clear and fundamental: it is what our teachers taught us and we learned in school; it is what all our religions teach us to follow; it is what our parents raised us to live by; it is what we know to do for those we care about, for those we love. The message is: Do the right thing. Do what? Do the right thing. Do it for who? Do it for America. Do the right thing! For America!
Do the right thing for America! DO THE RIGHT THING FOR AMERICA!

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I would amend it and add do the right thing for the world! ;)

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

I second it!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22091) 3 years ago

I think this is an interesting, avant garde idea and that is what this forum is all about. Our political system, as it stands, is not working. Perhaps the American public should vote directly on certain issues. I mean, take Obama's jobs bill. The majority of Americans supported it yet our "representatives" failed it. Same thing with the shenanigans during the debt ceiling matter in August. Gee, imagine if the American people could vote on the wars?

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

Exactly. And even if a majority agreed for war, then at least we would know it was the will of the people, not some corporate resource grabbing expedition. Reading your link now. I think I am in. Question is: what can I do next?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22091) 3 years ago

Good question. If you think of the answer keep me in mind. I'm still trying to figure this out too!

[-] 1 points by unlabeled (112) 3 years ago

We could collectively buy Businesses... http://occupywallst.org/forum/fight-fire-with-fire/

[-] 1 points by suzencr (102) 3 years ago

The only reason we have to pay taxes is because we have a debt money inflationary system that sucks all the wealth from the people and channels it to the 1%. I like the idea of internet direct democracy, though. Look, we just need to end the FED and the IRS and get back to sound debt free money as was true in our Constitution before 1913. Reset button. Firewall between government and corporate anything. Done deal.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I think communities also come together and pay 'taxes' for roads, schools, etc. It is a natural outcome of socializing and organizing. If we could represent ourselves, ad not elect someone todo it for us, then the local communities would have more control over their tax revenue and would be able tosee a return onthe communitys investment in itself. Because we don't have a say is exactly why global banking cartels are able to manipulate the system to their advantage and destroying our communities with it.

[-] 1 points by suzencr (102) 3 years ago

If we are taxed at all it should be on consumption, not on income, it is theft pure and simple and against the Constitution. The People were never to be directly taxed by federal gov't, only the States had the power to do that and only proportionately. Sales taxes and duties are the only legal taxes.

If the U.S. Treasury went back to printing sound debt free money distributed through State banks we would have plenty of money to pay for whatever was needed. Money is just a symbol of wealth and should be stable in value. The only reason we have fluctuations in value is because of manipulation by the FED and central banks through the creation of inflation. This always happens if you have money based on debt because there is never enough money in circulation to pay it off. Our money system is a giant Ponzi scheme and people need to see this.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

A tax is a tax, and I am open to what is taxed. I like a fixed percentage income tax only, myself. (no sales tax, property tax, etc) but I am open to ideas.

And you are right. It is robbery. But it is robbery because you don't have a say where it goes. If you could choice where your tax money went, then it is your choice. I also think it limits the ability for the government to borrow because all the government isrespobsible fir us directing where ourvtax dollars go based on our individual choice. It would have to live within its means.

I think this would also abolish the fed because iwe wouldn't be able to borrow from it, so itwould bevrendered impotent. And the US dollar would be justbthat, nit a Federl Reserve Note, where our combined income percentage if tax revenue is what the dollar is valued by.

Another idea I have regards government loans. I think all government loans should be intrest free. Then a percentage of your income is taken until your loan is paid back. For example: a student loan. Once the student begins employment, say 1% of their income is "garnished" until the intrest free loan paid back, this would encourage student loans, which are an investment in our futur, and becuse their is no intrest, wealth generated by the loan, itvwould help keep the economy stabilized, plus the student is still responsible for the loan, not all of society.

[-] 1 points by CleverUsername (18) from Kansas City, MO 3 years ago

Internet voting is the worst idea ever. Do you realize that people could easily (I repeat, EASILY) hack voting networks and just stack votes however they wanted? That's what is wrong with electronic voting now and you just want to make the problem 10,000 times worse.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I think that is a valid point. Do you think ballot boxes are the bestvway to go in a direct democracy? Any suggestions?

[-] 1 points by malikov (443) from Pasadena, CA 3 years ago

Direct democracy, as of now, is just like this forum - it's gonna have trolls and lobbyists, and other people with agendas. It requires certain level of culture of accessing, understanding, and proposing legislation and courses of action.

I try to create tools for this with http://lawdelta.org and http://superunion.org

I'd be interested in your input.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I will takea look and get back with you. Send me a message so I can stay organized better. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by Economist (1) 3 years ago

We can implement this. Refer to my post "Implementing Democracy within a Representative System." If you are interested, then I'm looking to organize a group to do it.

[-] 1 points by rknox (6) from Cedar Grove, NJ 3 years ago

Re OCCUPY DEMOCRACY

Rand Redemocratist at Large ReOccupy Democracy http://www.autobuyology.org/car15.html Thank you for teaching http://www.autobuyology.org/thankyouforteaching.pdf Tell Car Makers to Make Cleaner-air Vehicles http://www.autobuyology.org/tellcarmakerstocleantheair.pdf

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 3 years ago

How are we going to frame the questions the population has to decide upon?

When asked about a "public option" as part of health care reform, a majority was for it, but when called a "government option" a majority was against it, even though the plan remained the same.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I think that would be left up to the organizations pushing yes or no for a proposition. Very simlar to today. The real difference is that we dintelect people to "represent" us, but we directly vote on issues. That way the lobbyist must lobby the American people, not a representative who is easy corruptible. To also aid in corruption minimization, we decide individually where our taxes go. So if, let's say, the percentage of total taxes for department of health are 10%, then 10% of tax revenue is spent on this department, then, let's say, a group proposes a single health care payer plan, then, based on the locality's process, they get their idea a proposition ballot, and have a general election on with other groups interests.

[-] 1 points by SvenTheBarbarian (84) from Phrao, Chiang Mai 3 years ago
[-] 1 points by EvolveFromGreed (23) 3 years ago

I heard joe rogans speech about OWS and this came up. Rogan always speaks sense :)

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 3 years ago

Iceland is going in that direction.

After that the rest of the world will follow.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

Really? Explain more. I am curious...

[-] 1 points by e307465 (147) 3 years ago

What you're saying amounts to destroying our system of checks and balances and essentially the constitution. The idea behind having three branches of goverment, in my opinion, remains true. Unfortunately though, money and greed have corrupted those 3. I think resolutions should be passed that put checks on the money going in and out of the government. Term Limits, Ending the Fed, Campaign Finance Reform and abolishing of the Electoral College would be great starts.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

The executive and judicial remain. Congress is now the American People. That is the only change.

[-] 1 points by e307465 (147) 3 years ago

A lot of logistics would be needed but I suppose it is feasible. Keeping fraudulent activity out would be quite a challenge. It still wouldn't stop different 'groups' from trying to influence public opinion (whether good or bad).

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I agree. And I agree. I just like the idea of deciding where my tax dollars go, Han letting someone else represent me. I think if work is measured in dollars, and my dollars are what influence politic and economy then I have a right to say where it goes directly, not via a person to represent me.

[-] 1 points by e307465 (147) 3 years ago

I certainly cannot argue your points. Well said!

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 3 years ago

Agreed, and I particularly like the statement -- let everyone be...allowed to decide where their money is spent -- so perhaps you would consider our group's proposal of an alternative online direct democracy of government and business at http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategically_weighted_policies_organizational_operating_structures_tactical_investment_procedures-448eo , hit the facebook “like” button if agreed, and then join our group's 20 members committed to that plan at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

[-] 1 points by J2xF (2) from Ottawa, ON 3 years ago

All over the world, non-partisan electronic direct democracy (E2D) parties have been started independently at local, regional and national levels; inspired by the collaborative potential of the Internet to bring true democracy to the political arena, we are fighting to give decisional-making power back to the People.

Aktiv Demokrati, Sweden (national): http://aktivdemokrati.se/

Citizens for Direct Democracy, Belgium (national): http://www.directdemocracy.be

Democratici Diretti, Italy (national): http://www.democraticidiretti.it/

Demoex in Vallentuna, Sweden (local): http://demoex.net/en

Direct Democracy Party, New Zealand (cancelled): http://www.ddp.co.nz

Direkte Demokrati, Denmark (national): http://www.ddid.dk/

Hayeshira, Israel (national): http://hayeshira.org.il/

Online Party of Canada (national): http://www.onlineparty.ca/

Partido de Internet, Spain (national): http://partidodeinternet.es/

Online Reglemented Party, Romania (national): http://www.votdirect.ro

Party of Internet Democracy, Hungary (national): http://ide-ide.hu/

Senator Online, Australia (national): http://senatoronline.org.au/

Svojpolitik.si, Slovenia (national): http://svojpolitik.si/

Real democracy is coming soon to a country near you! Get involved today!

“There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come” - Victor Hugo

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

WOW!!!!

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 3 years ago

Your ideas are worth hearing, keep them coming.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 3 years ago

Great post.

To all the trolls and naysayers here:

This is the 21st Century!

For the first time in recorded history, we have the technological means to make Direct Democracy a reality:

http://metapolitik.org/blog/occupy-hackathons-produce-digital-tools

http://metapolitik.org/blog/protests-as-emerging-cities reply permalink edit delete

Also, check out these posts here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/direct-democracy/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/global-quorum/

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

No. The Founding Fathers got it right. We do not need to change our Representative Republic.
We got it wrong when we allowed money to seep, then flood, into the political process.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

Money will always be n the system. This just puts the control in you, the tax payers hands, not in someone elected to represent you (which isn't bound to keep their word). The Founding Fathers never imagined a citenzery as informed as ours today. Even those least informed are more informed than those in the past. And to think money didn't shape our Founding Fathers' politics is just silly. We had a Revolution over it.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

I didn't mean to suggest that money had no effect in shaping our country. Yes, we went to war because of it. But I don't think our Founding Fathers intended that our Representatives would be bought. I think they intended that our Representatives would listen to all of their constituents equally and fairly, and try to serve them all best, taking into account their wants and needs as well as applying overall good judgement, in good conscience.

I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that says, he who raises the most money wins. He who can SPEND the most money gets what he wants from government. I do not think this was the intention of our Founding Fathers.

I DO have a life. So do most of us. To think most people can spend the time to research each spending bill to vote on it, is not practical. I have a an overall vision of what I expect from my Representative. I want him to understand my broad goals, and act upon each piece of legislation with those goals in mind. I do not want to vote on each bill myself. I still say, our Founding Fathers got it right.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

But the problem is your representative don't. They tell us abetting then go to DC and do another. Repeatedly. This is how the system as become so corrupt. And I think the reason most of us feel like we don't have tie to study is because our media has donealousy job on educating us. Because the people now control their money (taxes) commercials and med a programs would be more geared towards us and where we decide to spend or money, rather than spending their time and money lobbying our 'represenatives'.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

I think that the system is corrupted by the money in the political process. If my Representative was not beholden to monied special interests, that help get him elected, he would then be more inclined to act on behalf of ALL of his constituents, equally and fairly. If he does not act on behalf of his constituents, he gets voted out next election.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

So what if we, the people, individually decided where our taxes went? Wouldn't that be taking the money out of politicians hands and put it back in ours? I mean, you would not hire employeesthen give them your purse and let them pay themselves, would you? But in essence that is what we have done with or government. The employees control our money... :)

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 3 years ago

When you have employees, you pick them carefully, and then trust them to do the job they are given. I do not hover over my employees and do their job for them. I tell them my expectations, give them guidance when necessary then let them do their job. If they do it well, they stay. If not, I have to let them go.
No, I do not want to do my Representatives job for him. If I did, what would be the point of having a Representative? And no, I do not want to get rid of my Representative, I just want to get the money out of the political process so that our Representative style of government, that our Founding Fathers gave us, works better!

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I will have to respectfully disagree. I want to represent myself. Electing someone to represent me, in my option, is a form of tyranny. With liberty comes responsibility and I am mre than willing to stay informed rather than give my power to someone else. But you make some very valid points. I appreciate your comments.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 3 years ago

I think the internet government would be hacked in about 10 seconds

[-] 1 points by SvenTheBarbarian (84) from Phrao, Chiang Mai 3 years ago

It is a valid point that the code could get hijacked, at the same time it would be a shame to give up humanities best hope of saving itself over such a thing. Realize the issue exists, build in the best security you can, go open source so the entire community is involved, get university students trying to hack or improve it, create contingency plans. Create a better tomorrow.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

Valied point.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I agree. And that's the big problem with the 'resource-based economy' too. Entrusting too much power to the machines is the same as conceding power to the technologists who run the machines.

[-] 1 points by ps1locybe (2) 3 years ago

Lets start the human revolution!!! We need to try and connect all the groups of people on the planet that will change the current systems of operation!

http://youtu.be/4Z9WVZddH9w

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

Thank you!! for your support!

The Zeitgeist Movement has too many reasoning holes, but it has the right heart, I welcome support from that end of the internet spectrum, but I am NOT to be confused with the Zeitgeist Movement. I don't want to be affiliated with any movement except for the International Occupy movement, I want that to be VERY CLEAR.

[-] 1 points by ps1locybe (2) 3 years ago

Lets start the human revolution!!! We need to try and connect all the groups of people on the planet that will change the current systems of operation!

http://youtu.be/4Z9WVZddH9w

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

those who have no money pay no taxes will have no say in a tax distributed government

those who have little money pay no taxes will have little say in a tax distributed government

those who have all the money pay all the taxes will have all the say in a tax distributed government

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

which is why we the people would need to vote against a tax distribution government, if such an idea was brought forward - or vote for it, try it out and see how that system would go, then learn from the mistake and vote differently.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

indeed they would be able to control their government

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

this tax idea is only set up as a subversion to the fact that

a publicly verifiable internet voting system could function

and also make running elections something that could be done more than twice a year

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

thank you for calling the diversion tactic what it is :)

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

Confused. Diversion tactic? I just want to have a say where my money goes. My wife is with her family in Juarez right now. To not that my tax money is what is used to destroy her home, kills me inside. That just working or using Federal Reserve Notes contributes to her misery. If I could just have a say where m tax money goes, in a direct way, without someone else representing me, and everyone else did too, then I believe we would see a decrease in the activities that are leading to the misery if people in the U.S. and around the world. Don't know how this is a diversion....

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

I think I need to re-read these series of comments, I may have misunderstood - I may have to take back or change my comments here, we'll see. I say this because I usually am of the same mind with Nulambda.

[-] 1 points by tympan55 (124) 3 years ago

I'm against any idea that increases the level at which technology controls our lives. I know it's like trying to hold back an unstoppable tide. Technology is a tool that can be used and abused. Someone will always accept the challenge of undermining the system. Technology causes the user to forfeit a measure of independence- just think how abandoned you feel when you lose your cell phone, or your computer crashes. It is a dehumanizing, desensitizing, and alienating process. Makes one wonder what is the true nature of progress.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

A bit hypocritical of you, considering what you are doing right now on this site :) Like you said, tech is just a tool, let's start using it right!

[-] 1 points by tympan55 (124) 3 years ago

Yes, if I were a true practitioner of what I preached I'd be living in a cave reading by candle light. I can either engage in a process that is covertly robbing me of my humanity, or live in ignorant bliss. Are those my only choices without being a hypocrite?

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

No, you can come here and say that sharing your opinion on a forum is very similar to voting online, only in an informal manner - that would not be hypocritical, and I don't see how it would rob you of anything.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

To susceptible to tampering.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

not if everyone voted with their name

then the vote could be held to the public eye

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

That is a violation of privacy. Many people don't others to know for whom they vote.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

it is a violation of the freedom of speech to prosecute the people for expressing their vote

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

what do you mean?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

if I tell my employer what I voted for,

that can not be used as ground to promote or demote me

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

Did I say it could no I just said to many American's how they vote is a very private matter.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

this private matter effects the public actions

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

Yes but it doesn't change the fact that the American people will not accept such a proposition.

What about those who don't own, have access to a computer and the internet.

What about those who are computer illiterate. Particularly senior citizens.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I think, because we are talking about controlling where your taxes go, that you could file this once a year, much like we do today. Online is an option.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

Senior citizens make up a large portion of those that do vote. I trust the they will continue to vote. Classes would have to be provided to instruct them how to so by computer,

internet access would have to be provide through the libraries

[-] 1 points by CharlieL (59) from Centerport, NY 3 years ago

I have the same fear myself, but possibly it is unfounded. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it couldn't. Could it be made safe? Are there unbiased experts who could suggest the truth one way or another? <Is anyone from Anonymous reading this?>

[-] 1 points by malikov (443) from Pasadena, CA 3 years ago

it can be made safe through a combination of online and offline techniques

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

There is a Wikipedia as an example of open sourced public and constatly evolving listing of verifiable facts, all interlinked.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

The Majority of College professors will not allow their students to cite Wikipedia because it is not a credible scholarly source.

[-] 1 points by malikov (443) from Pasadena, CA 3 years ago

Of course it's not the source - it's reference.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

Even as a reference because it is not scholarly and anyone can change or post an entry

[-] 1 points by malikov (443) from Pasadena, CA 3 years ago

Sorry, my comment wasn't clear. Wikipedia is a reference to sources, cause the articles cite them. A good starting point for a research. Of course Wikipedia is not to be used in academic papers (unless it's a paper on Wikipedia or smth like that.)

[-] 1 points by CharlieL (59) from Centerport, NY 3 years ago

Hmmm, interesting point.

[-] 1 points by SantiagoMesa (6) 3 years ago

There is no such thing as impenetrable computer or software that is connected to the internet. that being said, just because something is online does not render it more prone to tampering than an in person/physical system would. I understand that fear and see how it could lead to problems, but i would like to remind you that multi-billion dollar transactions go on via the internet and online connections and they have yet to have a serious problem. So in my humble opinion something like this would be feasible on a technological level. I actually do like your idea, bringing government to the home, something that the individual is actually responsible for. The problem i forsee with this is that the system itself could fluctuate quite dangerously in funding for various programs. this would also give the media the opportunity/power to sway those lesser educated citizens to do their bidding... (not that that doesnt already happen)

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I agree. It isn't much of a change from today, only that we all individually have a say where our tax money goes. I think that is as close to Direct Democracy you can get, because politics is all about having the power to decide where taxes go.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

Impossible, how much money do you think the Pentagon spends on internet security. More than any other government agency. Yet China is still able to hack into the Pentagon and steal classified documents.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

It's constructive to try to criticize this idea, but if you point your efforts for just a bit towards the other direction, you'll be amazed at how this idea takes off within you on so many levels.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

What about the online banking and online classes at universities, and online billing for EVERYTHING we do now, isn't all that just as subject to tampering? And what about OPEN source? And what about current voting methods that are corruptable by the 1%, remember the RECOUNTS?

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 3 years ago

Impossible, how much money do you think the Pentagon spends on internet security. More than any other government agency. Yet China is still able to hack into the Pentagon and steal classified documents.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

I think doing that would assume that the majority of Americans are smart enough to make such important decisions. Sadly, I don't think that is the case.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

If you read what I wrote carefully, lack of education does not equal stupid, and FACTUAL OPEN SOURCED INFORMATION can cure a bad education, and the internet can deliver both facts and voting easily.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

I agree that lack of education does not equal stupid. This system you propose, however, would require people to be proactive to educate themselves on various issues. Maybe such a system would require people to pass an online module of some kind (one that is easy enough so the vast majority of people can pass) just to insure they have the basic understanding of various issues. Just allowing anyone to vote though would scare me, even if they are "smart" or "educated."

[-] 1 points by SantiagoMesa (6) 3 years ago

requireing people to pass a competency "module" in order to do their voting on line is a modern day "jim crowe" law. But i do strongly feel that some kind of scrutiny should be considered when voting, but i dont know how something like this could be done fairly without compromising the ability of certain groups to have their voices heard.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

Look, the reality is, this who are not informed don't vote. That will not change in any system. The idea is to allow those whoare informed and want to participate to have a way to contribute. It is a choose to be an active citizen. All I am arguing is controlling where our tax money goes and having direct democracy, not represenitie democracy is a viable option today because of modern communication technologies. In essence, I want the citizen to become the legislative branch and dissolve Congress.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

I agree. Representative democracy would likely still be the best way. It just needs to be less corrupt.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

If we had a Direct Democracy in place and the world went to "heck" more than it is already going to "heck" now, then we would all vote through our Direct Democracy to have our old system of so called "Representative" Democracy brought back, and it would be (although as we know now, it is only representative of the most powerful and the best liars).

I HOPE THIS ENDS THIS LINE OF CRITICISM. Try a different line, this one I have just killed, because Direct Democracy DOES NOT DENY THE CURRENT system and Direct Democracy, if tried, is it's own best critic and can just as easily produce the very same system we have now, only minus the GREED and CORRUPTION.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

I think that if a direct vote was held right now about a conversion to direct democracy, it would fail. As bad as things are for some people, most people are ultimately very comfortable in their current situation and would not want to see radical change.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

you are correct, and the reason is because people don't realize that there is nothing radical about it, the governmet's power could be transfered to the people through a gradual process. All that needs to happen first is to declare the right of the people to vote directly on issues. Right now, we the people, don't have such a right. If we manage to get this right, then the conversion of our current broken Democracy could happen over time gradually with everyone participating in the process of the change; and although this process would take a long time, the people's opinion about it can change over night :)

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

Just curious... How is that different than today? I mean, you have the right not to vote... But you do pay taxes. So on your IRS form you file where you want your money to go (education, health, military, etc.) separate voting for legislation. If you don't participate in the legislation process you have no say. Just lie today if you don't vote. I don't see how this changes anything, or hurts anything.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

How is the common person going to be able to decide how much money needs to go to health vs. military? It is a pretty complex thing.

People aren't going to go for that. It is too radical. OWS needs to focus on things that are actually applicable today.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

It is just a percentage of your tax money. How does the confess decidevwhere it goes today? People have to sell them. Now these same sellers have to sell the American public. Are you telling me you like someone else telling you where to spend your money? Or wouldn't you like ta say where it goes? I am bot against taxes (public spending is apart of being a citizen) but I have a right to where the public spends it. It is my money earned by my work. Right?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

No, like I said, most people are not smart enough to do this well. The military would end up being grossly underfunded while a ton of money would go into the Dept Of Ed which just pisses it away all day on asinine school policies.

I would rather they clean up all the waste so I can pay less taxes. I couldn't care less how they divided it up if I was paying less of it.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

I disagree. I think the reason the dept of Ed pisses way our money is because we have no say. They are not responsible to us. They are responsible to our representatives.(easy access to corruption).I think we spend too much on military defense. That is why we are constantly attar. War is profitable. And, the balance is found in our difference with how that is funded. To me, the only vote a person really has is where their dollar is sent. Because I believe that taxes are apart of citizenry, I have no issue oath taxes, just how my taxes are spent. It is my money, thus my work, if someone else decides where my work goes, then I am not free. And I believe in liberty.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

In the WHOLE history of the earth, the majority has NEVER been able to directly and collectively speak and organize their ideas. True Democracy has never been tried, but not because of people lacking the abilities to rule over themselves in a fair and just society, but because THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN INTERNET till only a few years ago!!! Aren't you just afraid of the unknown and afraid because of the brainwashing you've been subjected to all your life by the media of the 1%? People don't participate because they have lost faith in the power of their votes! If they KNEW for SURE the will of the people would be fulfilled through voting then, THEY WOULD ALL VOTE! (edit) and THEY WOULD ALL GLADLY EDUCATE THEMSELVES PROACTIVELY THROUGH THE SAME SYSTEM THAT FACILITATES THE VOTING.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

I just don't trust some people enough to make important decisions that ultimately effect my life. There are a ton of dumb people out there unfortunately. I would be afraid people would vote with their emotions, not their brains.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

They already do that today... But commercials would be geared to issues, because ultimately, that is where the funding is based on your control of your taxes.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

The process of real Democracy has never been done before, and yet there so many of you who seem to know that it wouldn't work already. I wonder how you all know this? Are you all saying that YOU are too stupid to have a Direct Democracy? If not, then how are you so sure that the MAJORITY of this country is that stupid? Isn't this just another example of the generations of brain-washing education and TV shows and media and video games that make Americans, and now THE WORLD fell like that's all they're good for, consumerism and entertainment? Has the self-esteem of the entire USA been that ruined where I have comments like these from you all? If a 5 year-old can play a puzzle video game and win at it, I'd say he/she is smart enough to grow up and participate in INFORMED ONLINE DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

If you read my other comments on this page, I say in so many other words, that if a bad decision was reached through a Direct Democratic process, then the negative consequences of this bad decision that everyone voted for, would prompt people to re-think and then would prompt another vote and then a change, till the process naturally and organically purges the negative aspects of the decision, bringing the legislation closer and closer to the best version of the legislation that MOST people agree is the best version so far.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

A lot of people in this country lack any motivation whatsoever to better themselves. I am a dentist and 2 days per month I treat Medicaid patients. I have nothing against the poor, many of them are very nice and I would have no problem having them vote in an online democracy. A majority of these people, however, have literally zero education or even have a clue about issues, often even those that effect them directly. Not only do they not know enough to make informed decisions, they have no desire to.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

And they probably wouldn't vote. Just like they do today

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

I would not won't to risk it though. Obama was able to convince a lot of people to vote who never have before. It is even easier if you only have to do it online.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

So it is better to vote for someone to vote for you? I don't understand the logic? Democracy is messy. And yes, the system is not perfect. But if we want liberty for ourselves, then we have to in trust that liberty to everybody. Having the power to own your vote, rather than giving it to a represenitive, has to be fundamental to liberty. Maybe the Internet is not the best communication device, but giving the people the Congress, rather than politicians, would empower the people and allow us to liberate ourselves fro the current corruption running rampant in Congress today.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

I think the internet voting system can be put into place to support the current representative system

direct democracy can rise from calling for advisory voting throgh the internet voting system

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

Let's take an online vote and see, shall we?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

A vote of what?

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

A vote for Americans to say if they consider themselves capable of making reasonable decisions and policies in our government, PROVIDED THAT there is an OPEN SOURCE FREE LIBRARY of factual information available for people to overcome their GENERATONS WORTH of crappy education quickly and easily while they propose and vote for the issues that affect the local, country-wide, and international affairs that our country is engaged in abroad.

[-] 1 points by SantiagoMesa (6) 3 years ago

no one is going to admit online that they dont have the competency to vote. If they are smart enough to realize that they "shouldnt vote" then they are smart enough to figure out how to correctly vote. If they arent smart enough to realize that they shouldnt vote, then they will think they actually are making "smart decisions"... catch my drift?

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

If we had a Direct Democracy in place and the world went to "heck" more than it is already going to "heck" now, then we would all vote through our Direct Democracy to have our old system brought back, and it would be.

I HOPE THIS ENDS THIS LINE OF CRITICISM. Try a different line, this one I have just killed, because Direct Democracy DOES NOT DENY THE CURRENT system and Direct Democracy, if tried, is it's own best critic and can just as easily produce the very same system we have now, only minus the GREED and CIRRUPTION.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

I DO catch your drift, I've been catching that stench all my life, and I KNOW I'm not alone - make no mistake, I am NOT naive. But are you catching MY drift?

If and ONLY IF, there were an inseparable OPEN SOURCE OF FREE FACTUAL INFORMATION IN PLAIN WORDS AS WE ARE TALKING HERE AND NOW available WITH the online voting, then no one will feel intimidated, and also the "smart" ones will not be able to "vote correctly" like you said and exert their sneaky control over the popular opinion.

As for admitting online that you are stupid by the way that you vote, is a non-issue, since no one has to sign their vote.

[-] 1 points by alfi (469) 3 years ago

Informed Direct Democracy, the process by which the average well informed real public opinion is brought to the attention of all, directly, is now obviously made possible by the internet. Just as we have secure online banking, shopping, chat, forums, libraries, dictionaries, and many other types of large online services and gathering places of opinions and facts, we can have direct voting on ISSUES that affect everyone, accompanied by direct FACTUAL open sourced information available to all so we can KNOW what the issues are and how the issues affect people. The idea that most people are incapable of making direct decisions in their communities, governments, and international affairs because of lack of abilities, information, and lack of a practical method, is no longer tolerable. Most people on Earth, are perfectly capable of making sound decisions about any political, environmental, social issue, IF the people are provided with factual free open sourced information about the issues. Most people have enough common sense and reasoning abilities to understand and reach very reasonable solutions to all the issues we, the people of Earth, face today on local levels as well as global levels. Having poor education, as the 1% have turned our public education system into their consumer-worker brainwashing, is not the same as being stupid; and being trusting, as most people are, is not the same as being gullible, and is a virtue, not a weakness to be exploited by the greedy 1%. Most people should trust each other to share control over society together, not give up our liberties to a system of greed made by the 1% that's causing famine, wars financial desperation, poor education, and the destruction of our planet, all for MORE PROFIT FOR THE 1%. The internet already offers EVERYTHING that is needed to have Informed Direct Democratic voting on issues everywhere. All that is needed is for people to organize a system. This system should be started by the 99% Occupy International Movement right NOW, while there is still time. In a few short years, the PEOPLE OF EARTH could be voting on local politics and local issues, and on issues that affect their country, and global issues that affect everyone. Let's not allow the 1% to make us out to be a petty and shallow and selfish and cowardly poor VS rich movement. It's not about taking down rich people, it's about taking down GREED itself; most rich people have the same capacity for being reasonable as most poor people do. A real economic recovery is not accomplished by restoring the health of the financial institutions, because they measure their recovery in profit; we need to eliminate GREED from the financial system, because too-big-to-fail corporations reporting record profits does not equal healthy fair economy. The people can come up with MUCH better solutions together online NOW! It's time to stop handing over our control and trusting our representatives to make policies that reflect the will of the people, which they never do. We now have a system of greed running all governments and societies on Earth. Having the ability to vote AND BE INFORMED WITH THE FACTS about the issues directly as a people can FORCE our corrupt and greedy leaders to make the will of the people a reality. After all, in a Democratic society, the government's job is simply to administrate the process by which the will of the people is formulated into a body of laws and policies, which MOST people agree with, and then protect the peoples' rights to have such a Democracy. The government is sort of the secretary and the bodyguard of the people, not the authority for the people to be forced to follow even when most people disagree with its policies and decisions. In a true Democracy, the PEOPLE are the authority of the government.

MOST PEOPLE ARE REASONABLE, give most people the power of direct voting on issues, and we will have very REASONABLE policies, everywhere. Remember, the key is the FREE OPEN SOURCED INFORMATION (kind of like wikipedia) accompanying the voting sites on the internet.

So when reporters come to ask protesters on the streets what we are protesting for, what do we want, what are your demands (as if we were robbing a bank or something) we can say:

"WE THE PEOPLE OF EARTH DEMAND DIRECT INFORMED DEMOCRACY ENABLED BY OUR CURRENT COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, WE DEMAND VOTING ON ISSUES THAT AFFECT PEOPLE DIRECTLY THROUGH THE INTERNET AND WE DEMAND THAT WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL OPEN SOURCED ONLINE LIBRARY OF FACTS ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES WE ARE VOTING FOR."

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Direct demo will work, but equal, full info is needed all around. Meaning free speech needs to be unabridged so national network television must share verified information with the same masses it entertains.

Basically we need Article V to assure the the abridging of free speech is ended. I found a site that gets down with natural law as it is used in the constitution. There is a proposed revision of the 1st AMD.

http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html

After thinking on it, the language will bring back the usenet, which is a global message board! Meaning the discussion/communication leading up to direct democracy action, voting/polling, will be controlled by free speech laws.

That will help too. What people see on the TV, which MSM will not share, they can discuss and thresh out their differences, unify as they may, or may not, then vote.

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 3 years ago

I agree somewhat. I think it would have to be somewhat regulated tho. If no one elected 2% goes to pay politicians or welfare then where does the funding come from? The govt doesn't actually create anything. I play Texas Holdem and I'm also a really big fan of the movie Rounders so I like to say that "In the game of life, Govt is the rake". It's the hole in the bottom of the bucket. No matter how much you put in, it's never enough, and it's always fading fast. So maybe an 8% electable tax to go where you decide, and 2% or 3% to "the general fund" or whatever you wanna call it.

I agree that we should use the internet more in our political process. Govt funded websites that are secure as shit because we have the best of the best (hiring) to maintain the system. Give schools grants to push tech jobs, and actually build infrastructure that matters (Power grid, High speed internet, solar panels that are actually efficient, hydrogen powercell cars that run on water) and then hire teachers that can spread the knowledge for a decent price.

The only problem with that is the reliance upon the power grid. How hard would it be for someone to kill power for large chunks of the country? Then where would we be?

I think the best option is a 1/2 and 1/2 scenario where you pay 10% flat, with graduated taxes known as "lifestyle" taxes instead of "sin" taxes. A lifestyle tax would be a score (somewhat like your credit score) that says to the Govt how much of a polluter, recycler, etc you are. Not anything intrusive, but enough so that if you drive a prius, you either pay less for gas since you don't use as much, or if you drive a Hummer that gets 4mpg. There is no reason to drive one unless you just want to be that asshole on the freeway taking up your lane and 1/2 of mine. I'm ok with people buying whatever they want, but there are already bullshit taxes wired into everything you buy. They might as well actually tax the people who actually use the most.

I think that the federal elections should be held at polls like they are now. It helps people actually feel the participation. Bills I think could be held in a majority vote over the internet however. What the people all 310,000,000 of us want, shouldn't be put in the hands of 500 or so people.

All bills are put up to vote for the people to decide what they want. Federal bills like spending, NASA, Military etc would be categorized and state bills and local govt would be in their own categories.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 3 years ago

Good ideas... Interested to see the responses.... Thanks. :)