Forum Post: Give the power back to the people
Posted 12 years ago on Sept. 27, 2011, 11:36 a.m. EST by Korsen
(53)
from Fairfield, CT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I've had this invention of mine for a few years now and it would essentially be giving the power that Congress has back to the people. It's a highly complex idea that holds its own merit and would do much for this melting pot of a country. Sure it has its own problems that are easily fixable but it's nothing too far from what we already have going. I've already documented several points in support of the idea. Before I get into those, this product would provide immediate jobs across the country in every single state, be covered by government, is every form of handicap accessible, removes all forms of lobbying, eliminates the whole voting cluster-"shucking" between training, resources, and a lost day of work, as well as providing complete transparency and several redundancy systems.
The meat: Historical Considerations Supporting "Congress": Travel was an issue during 1800. There was a lack of representation for each state. In 1790 there were 5 people per square mile. No women suffrage. No racial suffrage (in essence, an old white system). It was a new country that needed a collective problem solving process. There was no established military control or dominance - the people fought. The idea of president and checks/balances was a new, fresh, unbroken system. It was a new system with then unknown flaws and little - no corruption. This can be compared to when a new game comes out and there aren't any hacks or bots for it.
Modern Considerations Against Congress: Internet. Connected Society. Transparency (or the demand for it). There are currently over 80 people per square mile. Lack of representation. Blatant system flaws. Checks and balances are ignored. Easily corruptible. Monetary Abuse. Poor allocation of resources. Important issues are always on the back burner. Infighting. At most the founding fathers only wanted 1 person for every few thousand people to represent them.
Reasons to keep Congress: Someone else does the work. Someone else makes the "hard" decisions. People cannot make considerate and forward thinking decisions. Plato once said something along the lines of if you think yourself too smart or too good to participate in politics you will be governed by those who are not.
Reasons for this idea: Extreme transparency. Awareness becomes viral. Everyone is represented. Porkbarrel, earmarks can be eliminated. Bribing is impossible. True form of democracy. From me to we. Checks and balances work. Laws/bills are more specific and in a language everyone can understand. Reversible mistakes. Research/Experts to provide weight on issues. People can track bills. Community is the one revising and selecting bills. Can potentially spread internationally.
Reasons against Congress: Fill up war memorial stadium, drop a senator in the middle, and see if he shares the majority of views without contradicting himself. Multiply the stadiums by 11 and not the senator. There is 1 representative for every 575 thousand people. Article 1 - Apportionment, which was not passed in the Bill of Rights wanted at MOST 1 person for every 50,000. For the international crowd, you would have to pack 2.5 Strahov stadiums for every 1 representative here. Bribing 575,000 people is much harder than bribing 1 representative. Gay rights and women's rights are not lumped together with civil rights.
Reasons against the idea: An adjustment period would be necessary. A Law firm's agenda could show through too often. Tech support would need to grow rapidly, and the older generation would need to be instructed in the idea's use. There would be many bills vs enough time to read and vote, despite two weeks worth of review and requirements for plain english. The majority now outweighs the minority (but when has it not? instead of the money majority it's now the body majority) There would be an exponential need for an educated, moral, ethical, and considerate population.
How does Congress change the country? Wealthy are in power -> wealthy have selfish needs or different needs like money. They can buy anything else. They can filibuster anything, including morally/ethically important bills or civil rights (COUGH GAY COUGH WOMEN COUGH) changes. There are instant protections and white collar salaries that lead to fearful protectionism and the desire to stay in control. Wealthy own all the businesses, control and power are asserted to corporate business. Out of touch -> old/obsolete/archaic values stay around leaving change/evolution to take longer. Just observe this site and the movement.
How does this idea change the country? Potential consolidation of mayoral, governor duties or job. Potentially appropriate distribution of wealth. Provides permanent technician and support jobs. Handicapped and disabled count for something again. Proper spending when and where it's needed. Despite potential for law firms to be bribed, a short history will ban/destroy cheaters permanently. Can tap into universities/professors/experts/research. Practical solutions can be found for anything for the good of all.
Essentially, this would be a panel placed in each domicile (so that renters can have access if they move) that would give the public a week to vote on portions of a bill that was presented by themselves and to support the bill with expert testimony and research. A random law firm would be chosen at random to take the approved portions of the bill (as well as approved real-time modifications) and convert it into plain english. We would then get a second week to review the language and make sure everything was up to par. At the end of the second week, if the bill is voted on and passed, a second random law firm writes it into law language as well as making a plain english copy. These two results would be compared against each other and determined whether or not either law firm stuck their dirty fingers into modifying it in any way and if so, banned permanently from participating and/or revoking bar license.
Bill tracking is present on the panel, apps, voice activation, and video tech support. Anyone can submit a bill, anyone can provide research and life experience, and programming will be done to help avoid redundant bills from occurring.
Tampering with the device would be easily detectable.
Bottom line: No more lobbying, no more bribing, no more false representation, no more greed and selfishness. More jobs, more transparency, more time to be involved with the country and the direction it's going in, more "I want to make a difference.", more listening, more power to the people.
The people wanna see AIG's or Chase or BofA's books? All you'd have to do is ask and it would become law. The president and judicial branch still retain checks and balances as the founding fathers wanted, and we start figuring out who really wants to lead this country and who really just wants to own a piece of it.
Cheers. Talk to me at #Dmajlak on twitter.
I'll be honest. I am interested, but it is 3am for me, and that post needs to be a little more bite-sized.
My skim reading suggests to me that you are proposing an "everyone can vote on every issue" sort of agenda. I am in agreement, in principle (and perhaps in practice). But how will these issues be dealt with:
1) Complicated, technical bills that require people to make value judgements... but to understand the pros and cons one requires an expertise. Do we limit who can vote? If so, how do we decide who can vote? And then, how do we enforce it?
2) Will there be a limit on number of bills per day? Will bills only be voted on monthly?
1) The bills would be presented, and then along the lines of your issue, the experts would weed out the unpopular portions of the bill and when it passed, a law firm converts it into plain english for the population to get their word in as well before it becomes final. There's an initial review, and then a final review before people go "oh I wish I voted on that one now.." The point is to not only allow everyone to vote on every issue that affects them, but also for the language to be brought down to a common denominator where it becomes simple for everybody to understand what its passing would mean. So no limiting who can vote.
2) I haven't studied how Congress gets their bills around, but I would guess it would be a streamlined process where it would begin upon submission and end with a final vote. It could always be instated to the point where a certain percentage of the population has to vote on it before it passes but that's up for discussion. The panel would have a separate and organized screen for any bills that were being tracked by the user/voter, as well as apps and so on.
The answer to 2 is satisfactory for me.
The answer to 1... being a physicist, I have doubts. My doubts lie not in the ability of the law-makers to convert technical concepts to plain English, but in the stranglehold a media-force could have on the public opinion. People want their information easy (usually). The nuclear power issue is a prime example.
I am actually anti-nuclear (because I think renewables are a more reasonable option) but I find the common anti-nuclear propaganda nauseating. Having said that, if the education system in America (and Australia) wasn't so dumbed-down, then perhaps people wouldn't be such lazy-information-seekers.
The actual opinions and comments for the bill would actually be submitted with the bill itself for a real-time conversation provided with research to back up any claims as a requirement, and markers in the comments to verify who has what expertise to comment on the subject and from where. A media force would generally not have any success one way or another as long as anybody attaches facts and supporting evidence/documentation either for or against the bill. So to take care of your problem, the information concerning the bill would essentially be provided by anyone who was participating. No research or documentation, can't use facts. The comment portion of the bill would be there to try to sway people one way or the other, and the most critical comments would be pushed to the top using a ranking system so the gibberish all falls to the bottom.