Forum Post: IDEA - Replace House of Reps voting with Internet voting
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 7, 2011, 12:48 p.m. EST by electrictroy
(282)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What we should do is "leave things the way they are" but replace the House of Representatives "ayes and nays" session with direct voting by internet. Whenever the Representatives produce a bill for voting, all 100 million homes would login and cast a vote. (The Senate would still remain the States' House.)
If we had that kind of system, the Banker Bailout Bill (TARP) would have been voted down. Ditto the Megacorp Welfare Bill (socalled stimulus). 1.5 trillion would not have been stolen from taxpayers to bankers/ corporations.
All it takes is a constitutional amendment to delete one sentence in the Constitution and replace it with voting by electronic ballot (1 vote per household).
Thoughts?
Replace congress with a prison for corrupt politicians.
alot of the comments on here sound more libertarian then socialist. however, internet voting is a horrible idea, that would only disenfranchise those too poor to own a computer, or those who work long hours trying to support their families and cant make it to a library computer to cast their vote.
The public library has computers lost of access opportunity...lame claim as a why not...so....next.......
[Removed]
I agree direct democracy will put the money f politics into the hands of the majority
[Removed]
you won't like mob rule any better than what we have now.
[Removed]
Take the financial incentive out of politics altogether. Only people with less than a certain net worth should be allowed to run for (and remain in) political office. If rich folks want to govern, they should be forced to give their money away in a modern potlach celebration. Then we could see where their loyalties lie. This would weed out the cockroaches from the altruistic problem-solvers. The philosopher-kings are out there - and we need them now!
[Removed]
Problem is somebody would figure out how to rig the vote. That's fine if it goes your way, but what if it doesn't?
I would support this if there was not hackers in the world however once you turn to technology with the voting process "rigging" will be rampant. No!!! We need a paper ballot system counted by an independent agency.
Called.. 'The Popular Vote'.. and has been running on the hill for decades, ever since the Computers went 'On Line'...
It is THE Best Way for us to be Guaranteed one Person, one Vote!
..But ONLY if we get a Receipt!
Here is another idea. Maybe you can set up a vote and see how close you come to that 99% representation you've been preaching. Anyone with a brain would vote OWS down.
Support Revolution 2.0 - Their idea restructures the government to where the people oversee the actions of the government – even overturn governments’ decisions when the majority deem it necessary – oversight is conducted through the V2 (internet version 2)
http://www.osixs.org/V2_Menu_V2.aspx.
It’s called Direct Democracy. We just have to want it badly enough! http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_intro.aspx
Overview: Welcome to the beginning of the second American Revolution. The purpose is to educate and to move the United States and the rest of the world forward. We all know that something is terribly wrong with our country but we don't have a clue what to do about it. But we do know we cannot continue to sit around and do nothing. We are so confused, we don't realize how dangerous it is to continue voting for democrats and republicans. We've become mentally crippled and dependent on two parties and our current form of government. They can't help you. The best people to help the people are the people. Until you figure that out, you will remain lost.
Welcome to the Revolution.
Revolution 2.0 is a revolution in ideas and technology along with a vision to move this country forward. Read common sense 3.1 and the rest of the pages on the menu. This will give you a clear understanding of what the problems are, what we need to do about them and most important, how to proceed by taking real action. Our government didn't create itself and it can't fix itself. Problems never solve themselves…
Common sense 3.1 is a call to action to address the problems of the nation. http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx
The second bill of rights are the baseline expectations and goals for Revolution 2.0 http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_billofrights.aspx
The Declaration of Dissolution and Termination (DDT) is a formal and legal declaration of grievances prepared by the people of the United States to be served to the government of the Untied States. The declaration is also a formal and legal order by the people to the government of the United States to cease and desist specific government operations in accordance with instructions laid down by the Execution of Dissolution and Termination. http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_Intro_DT.aspx
The Execution of Dissolution and Termination (EDT) is the formal process and rules for dissolving parts or all of the old government and then terminating the old government after the new government has been fully implemented. http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_Execution.aspx
What I do like about this movement, is that it gets the job done without violence. If violence breaks out; the government can and will impose martial law and the rest of your rights will be stripped from you. With your rights gone; your vote; your signature; and your opinion are irrelevant. With the frustration that is building in America; I can envision this possibility. Revolution 2.0 sidesteps this pitfall.
If you like what you see at this site; please vote here and let them know of your support: http://www.osixs.org/Vote.aspx
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." ~ Abraham Lincoln ~
[Removed]
Better idea would be text voting. Then people wouldn't have to stop driving or watching Idol and X-Factor in order to vote. They could even do it while shopping for more crap they don't really need.
Not this again. How come this was on the top, and I don't see any current comment?
I have security concerns with this. Even if individual voters are not bought off or bullied into voting a given way their vote can still be compromised through malware. Once a computer is hit with a virus or a website is hit any and all votes cast on it can be altered. So even though I think my computer is safe I cannot always be sure, and if it is compromised someone could make a mint selling my vote.
Consider the infection estimates linked to here: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/749071.html while the numbers are likely out of date I doubt that they've changed that much. If 33% of all PCs are infected then it seems likely that at least a majority of those votes, say 12% would be compromised. Given the relatively narrow margins on most issues that would likely be enough to tilt any balance.
I for one don't feel that my vote would be safe if others votes are not and, knowing that my own family members are less security-savvy than I, I wouldn't feel safe with internet voting at all.
Exaggerate much? Most of those "infections" are nothing more than tracking cookies (to see that you've visited facebook and amazon.com today). They don't cause any harm or steal your vote. In over 25 years of computing, I've never had any of my accounts hacked or money stolen.
Also you have to weigh the risks. I consider the risk my vote will be hijacked to be much, much, much smaller than the risk that my Congressmen will vote "aye" to pass a TARP bailout bill (even though 80% of us were against it).
Basically I think we'd all be better off to eliminate the corrupt congressman from the equation, and just vote directly on each bill once a week. (TARP would have been defeated.)
This will happen someday, however, it will come with it's own set of problems. Not to mention that the control freaks that are ruining our democracy will not easily return the system to the people.
Well said.
As for those who claim it can't work - apparently Switzerland uses a direct voting Republic. direct referendum for passage of each bill.
Of course what I'm proposing would be a little different, as the bill would not become law until it received assent from the Senate and the President. So it would not be a true democracy (not mob rule).
Don't hold your breath waiting for the senate to approve anything! They're all about filibustering and stopping votes. Besides; what's wrong with mob rule? As opposed to what? Minority rule? WTF?
[Removed]
totally agree, add that as a sub page off of this one?
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Direct_Democracy;_Intellectual_and_Social_Tools_For_High_Order_Problems.#Mission_Statement
Contents [hide]
In my little plan you have 3 houses The House, The Senate, and the new one called The Populace or The People..House and Senate vote as usual and you have the populace electronic voting system also. Nothing passes unless all three agree..I think it's an extra check on government..It's simple also and doesn't dismantle what we have already.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71752240/A-Vision-for-a-New-Democracy
Some letters are missing in the document..Happened when uploading to scribd.
Why?
Why not just eliminate the People's House of Reps and directly replace it with the Populace? That makes logical sense since its a 1-to-1 dropin replacement. (Not that I support this... I'd rather just modify the existing house.)
Well the main complaint you always get about Direct Democracy, is that people are uninformed...I just was trying to figure out a way to modify what we have...The house comes up with the budget..I think it would be kind of tough to have a direct replacement but I'd also like to see how that could be done..
The House would not change in any way, except when it came for the representatives to vote passage of a bill:
currently they vote aye or nay
what I propose is letting the People vote directly instead (once per week)
A minor but important change.
So I guess the House and the Lobbyists would create legislation only?
[Removed]
Personally, I think it would be much more democratic to abolish the Senate and the Presidency and transform our system of government into a unicameral parliamentary system.
Also by doing that, you eliminate the checks-and-balances of one branch versus another, states versus federal (another check/balance), or the protections provided by a Constitution, Bill of Rights, et cetera.
You'd have something resembling the UK government which routinely runs-over citizens' rights (spying on emails/facebook,, shutting down websites, free speech, etc).
A genuine peoples government would not need any checks and balances. Does the GA have any checks or balances?
[Removed]
Yeah because that worked just great for the EU Parliament. It is such a democratic institution that never, ever tramples upon the rights of its citizens.
/end sarcasm
The problem with the EU is not that it is a parliamentary system. In point of fact it is not. The problem of the EU is that the member states remain both sovereign and superior in their sovereignty to the EU, so it becomes little more than a debating society. There are dozens of examples of the parliamentary system working just fine, Great Britain being a prime example. Most parliamentary systems are bicameral, though in Great Britain the power of the House of Lords is extremely circumscribed though not entirely absent.
Well to repeat what I just said:
The UK government routinely runs-over citizens' rights (spying on emails/facebook,, shutting down websites the parliament doesn't like, etc), because it doesn't have any Supreme Laws (constitution, bill of rights) to stop the government from acting.
I have several concerns with Internet voting... one, many of the poor do not have Internet access, and even if it were provided for free, most do not have the ability to maintain those machines, and let's face it, with all the malware most machines are essentially shot within months; two, there is no way of verifying voter status; three, there is nothing on the Net that is not corruptible. We're talking everything from adolescent kids to political parties to corporations to crime syndicates, both within and without - all have an interest in corrupting the process, and all will immediately introduce add-on programs and bots that will do it for them.
Why not? My brother is, frankly, an idiot who has no knowledge of how computers work. He just turns it on and uses it w/o doing any "maintenance" the last three years. -- And yes internet is cheap. Netzero is free. AOL is $7. Verizon DSL is $15.
Pardon my french but - bullshit. I'm typing on a machine that's almost ten years old. No PC gets ruined in mere months.
How about the same method that is used for unemployment? SSN plus address plus PIN plus password
There are many areas of the country that have no cable access whatsoever and therefore no Internet.
Malware will definitely slow a machine today within in months to the point where its no longer capable of surfing the Net. They require continuous maintenance. And I can't tell you how many people I know who are without computers right now simply because they were not capable.
If you think the Net is secure or that there is some foolproof method of providing security, you're very foolish. Create anything you want and I'll bet my machine that I can assemble a dozen adolescents and they'll totally hack it within a month.
[Removed]
You might be an engineer but you don't know too much about computers or the Internet. And there is absolutely no way you are providing a secure network to every home in this country.
Stupid question, but have you ever heard of poor people? Because I know a lot of them, and when their computers bog down with spyware, and they lack the patience and ability to learn, those computers go out to the curb. And they can't afford to buy another one and just plug it in. I know of at least a half dozen right off the top of my head that are unemployed and without Internet access.
Every form of malice you see on the Internet today - viruses, malware, spyware... phishing, cc-ing, punters, botnets... hacking in general, was developed by children.
Voting electronically is absolutely foolish. And even it worked, can you imagine the databases that would be compiled for future use?
So you'd rather reject my idea because a few thousand persons don't want to spend $200 to buy a PC. You'd rather keep the existing House of Representatives where only 435 people get to vote, while the other ~320 million persons get no vote.
Yeah that makes sense.
Not.
I don't like the idea of direct democracy, no... and I think Internet only is highly discriminatory.
[Removed]
I like the idea of establishing an electronic voice for THE PEOPLE. Create a direct contact for the American public to the Government to comment on issues and to forward issue's. To vote on the worthiness of proposed policy/action prior to institution/enactment.
Perhaps the idea for the process could be initiated at the following web site:
A site to submit issues have them collected, collated and submitted. www.lobbydemocracy.com
We actually have direct access in the form of E mails. I write our officials on a fairly regular basis.
I do to. The only thing is that it is a very limited access and does not provide a place where an issue could be commented upon by others. We should be able to submit an issue and comment on it and have the information resulting from the interaction collected and then collated for further consideration and possible actions to take to be suggested and voted upon.
The healthcare bill is reputed to be over 2000 pages. I haven't been able to find it on the Net. If it were available, I could assign 20 people to read 100 pages, and develop an opinion. And then I could repeat the process and assign another 20 people to read 100 pages, over and over again. I could then pull all those of a 100 pages together to reach some consensus and provide a synopsis of each 100 pages. I'd also like to read their trade agreements. So I find it particularly perturbing that these documents are not readily and immediately assessable to the public. We shouldn't have to wait until years later to read about what Congress is doing.
A vote, or action, on the process is debatable, after all, they are elected and there to represent. But it would be nice if we at least knew what they are doing. As it is, even they don't know what they're doing.
Are you serious? HR 3962 http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf has been on the internet since before it was passed. You've lost the small bit of credibility that you may have had.
That's funny because I had searched of it before and was unable to find it. Interesting. Can you tell me then, how many bills this Congress has passed? And what they are?
By the way, I have no need of credibility.
I haven't bothered and don't really care to find out how many bills have been passed. You need to research the 111th Congress. It shouldn't be too hard to see the bills and the votes.
Perhaps the credibility comment was unnecessary, but your suggestion to replace the house with citizens' votes is far fetched to say the least.
Nah... scroll up, you have me confused with someone else. Sometime following budget reconciliation I began searching for it on the net and was unable to find it. What I was suggesting is that if it were available to the public perhaps we could form committees to decipher it. Well, as you have informed me, it's now available.
The 111th at last count, I believe, had only passed about twenty bills for this session. But we really can't complain about what government is doing if we don't know what government is doing.
And again I would say, I have no need of credibility.
Wow!! My mistake. I did have you confused with another poster.
I've read much of the bill. Concentrating on on small sections is extremely difficult as many times references are made to other sections. Much like your comment to me, "scroll up, you have me confused with someone else", there is a need to move through the entire document to read related material.
I find credibility on these forums to be an important attribute. Unfortunately, I just lost some of mine by not following this thread carefully.
Well, we're not likely to ever meet and an online persona isn't really that important to me. Just expressing opinion here......
These issues and others are why we should start the process of petitioning now. Check it out.
Create sign and send petitions. The more inputs we have the better. http://occupywallst.org/forum/create-sign-and-send-petitions/
A site to submit issues have them collected, collated and submitted. www.lobbydemocracy.com
For the most part, we have no idea what Congress is doing. We're so focused on "issues" we don't bother to even check.
So then contact them.
Contact the White house: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Contact the senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Contact Congress: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
Contact the house of representatives: http://www.house.gov/htbin/findrep?ZIP=55433
Contact the Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/
And why would you want to challenge me on a thought so fundamental? Did you read the healthcare bill? Can you tell me what has passed in this session of Congress? Can you even tell me what session of Congress this is?
Internet voting is BS!
I'm not challenging you. But like you said we need to do something besides discuss issues. The only way to start "is" to start. So you might want to consider starting a petition or start lobbying. Forward your efforts to all of us here and to everyone you know - friends and family. I am advocating to everyone in the OWS and 99% movements to begin action now. We have starting points we just need to start using them. Else we are just venting for no constructive purpose. And why would you automatically dismiss a tool ( the internet ) as being BS. You can not at this point in time know where this tool may be able to take us.
Create sign and send petitions. The more inputs we have the better. http://occupywallst.org/forum/create-sign-and-send-petitions/
A site to submit issues have them collected, collated and submitted. www.lobbydemocracy.com
Nah... I, my friend, am playing to win,
people are not prepared to vote on all the issues
[Removed]
Neither are most Congresscritters, who don't even read the bill before voting. Or else ask stupid questions like, "If we put too many tanks on the Hawaii island, won't it... tip over?"
That wouldn't fix things. There would still be fraud and corruption and tampering. Educating the electorate is really the only effective tool. Reforming and/or replacing the financial system so that it rewards those goals that strengthen the country rather than just rewarding greed would go a long way to fixing things.
how you going to do all that, with a rock, a gang of Anarchists....
.try Voting Online First....then say whether it works or not...
And how are you going to do that? With a rock, a gang of Anarchists?
How? Is someone going to go-round to 110 million homes to bribe the residents every week?
LOL. Unlikely.
Who gets the tallies? What program is used. Computers are hacked all the time. And only the tally computer need be hacked.
Good point. Usually when systems like this are setup, three separate computers are operated independently. If they agree then everything is good, but if they don't agree then it indicates a hack and the poll is thrown away. (And rerun after the computers are wiped clean of potential viruses or hacks.)
It's not a bad idea, but it's as unlikely as any to get implemented. You'd need to lobby congress, and constitutional amendments don't get passed every second Thursday. A huge grass-roots movement is unlikely due to the poorly educated electorate.
Yeah I don't understand that. The people who wrote the Constitution added 10 amendments before the ink was even dry (10 amendments in just two years). 3 more during the first generation. Since then we've added just one every 16 years.
They intended the document to be amended frequently in order to evolve with society, and we've kind of failed in that mission.
Yeah, no. I don't think so. Again, it is tyranny of the majority and, the last thing that we need is something that can be hacked for someone else's gain.
Isn't that how the House of Reps works now? By majority vote?
(shrug). In any case you're wrong. It is tyranny of the Constitution. No House vote can overturn Constitutional law. Therefore it would still be a Republic just like we have now.
Also how the heck would someone hack 110 million computers spread all across this 2000 by 3000 mile continent??? Be realistic.
The question is not how, but why? Why would someone do this?
For the same reason that there are online polls that the trolls hit. The same reason that there are trolls here.
It is tyranny of the majority with online voting and further, it means less accountability.
Nonsense. The voting would be just as secure as your internet bank account. Tell me: Why are you trying to suppress the Voice of the People in their own House of Representatives? Why shouldn't we have a weekly referendum to pass (or not pass) House bills?
Why are you trying to hide accountability?
Why are you lying? http://www.slaw.ca/2011/09/06/hacking-into-bank-accounts-what-is-the-banks-responsibility/
Whoa those are strong (and insulting) words. Why do You want to keep a House of Representatives that is serving Bank of America, AIG, General Motors, Microsoft, and other megacorps? Why are You being a sellout?
Why do you want to keep the People from having a democratic referendum in their own House? Why do you want to keep them muzzled? (Hey this is fun.) ;-)
No more insulting than yours, electrictroy. Again, why are you giving every opportunity for the Bank of America, AIG, GM, Microsoft, and the other megacorps to purchase people without any accountability whatsoever? Did you somehow fix the power of the lobbyists? No. Did you somehow protect the people more through anonymity? No.
So, why are you protecting the powerful and ensuring tyranny of the majority?
They are going to bribe 110 million households? Every week? How would they do that? How would they even afford it? It would cost them trillions of dollars.
Anonymity is not something I said. You put words into my mouth.
Non-sequitor. We have a Constitution. That's rule of law, including the Bill of rights to protect people's freedom & liberties. There would be no more tyranny than what we have now.
Is it necessary to bribe 110 million households? It is not. Now, could you bribe someone to fix or hack? Yes. In fact, how many undocumented workers have access to false documents? That is another route.
How do you feel about Prop 8 in CA? That is called tyranny of the majority. This is a republic. You don't have to say anonymity. I said it for you. I want more transparency not less.
[Removed]
The California system is stupid, as far as I am concerned. This is a system that you can take an item that no one has bothered to really educate themselves on and then have them vote on it. You need to look up prop 8 and the money that was thrown at it. In fact, you need to look at the amount of money that is used to misinform the public in all of our major issues.
I love ya to death, but I do not agree with this. You have not changed the problems and in fact are heading in a direction that creates more problems than it solves.
House passes, Senate passes, next stop Supreme Court. I want elected officials to be held accountable.
I want elected officials held accountable too.
Conclusion: They failed. Miserably. That's why I think we should take away their vote (in the People's House) and make it a once-per-week referendum. If we would have had that in 2008, TARP would have never passed. Or the bailout bills.
80% of Americans were against passage. Instead that crap got pushed through anyway. The voice of the people was ignored. The People's House is no longer the people's house, and that needs to be fixed.
I was with you till 1 vote 1 household - that makes no sense. Needs to be 1 vote per person.
You're right! I didn't even think about that.
I assume you would exclude children and teens?
I'd keep same qualifications for voting rights as exist today I guess.
Let Diebold manage it.
I was very very annoyed when the Democrats in Maryland voted to buy new e-voting machines from diebold. There was nothing wrong with the old scantron machines we used. Draw a line for your candidate, then scan it. It provided the ease of electronic counting plus a paper trail for handcounts. It was essentially perfect.
But no. The 80% dominant Dems replaced them with diebold computers that have no paper trail whatsoever. How stupid.
Here, here...AGREE...let's conduct internet vote on this site as a beginning! Are we all in favor of prosecuting the Wall Street Schemers and Bank Groups for crimes against their country?
Hell yes. Too bad the TARP bill that Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid crafted in 2008 specifically gave the bankers immunity. :-(
We need smart thoughtful people in a debate...and looking for issues and solutions to them....
This is why in a full Direct Democracy, just like you need a Drivers License, you get a Voters Debate License.....
anyone can still vote...
but only intelligent people get into the debate process by which issues and solutions are developed...
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/content/american-direct-democracy-voters-test
You can suggest a question to be added to the test here:
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/suggestvoterquestion
I took your test.
I have two (soon to be three) college degrees and didn't recognize any of the quotes. Well I recognized them but had no idea who said them, so I answered 1 and left the rest blank. So I failed (and would be disallowed from voting). Anyway I'm no dummy (engineer, electronic designer, programmer), so what exactly is the point of a test that prevents smart people from voting?
Also consider this: "There is no point to memorize that which one can simply look up in a book." - Einstein. Your test is merely one of memorization, not one that tests actual intelligence. Many autistic people could pass, simply because they have photographic memory, while intelligent people fail because they do not. It neither screens-out low IQ persons, nor lets high IQ persons vote.
The test is pointless.
P.S.
Also the ballot itself is a Fail. I just double-checked with Google, and even though I answered the questions correctly, the ballot marked them wrong. Furthermore it says "you may leave questions blank, to avoid losing points" but it marks those blanks wrong too. It appears the programmers of the ballot are the true idiots.
but thanks for the feedback all the same, there are now some instructions...and hey, didn't meant to frustrate you with a beta:
The Voters Test is an educational tool.
It is an open book exam, of sorts.
You must find correct answers to each question before proceeding to the next.
The System will remember where you left off upon return, this should work for anon users if using same IP, as well as those who are logged in that can use any IP.
The test is here so that at the end of it, we may not all agree on much, but at least we know some of the same things, and this will assist us in our debates.
The Voters Test is in development, please send questions in one of the following formats to be included in the test.
Multiple Choice
True or False
Match the answer to the question (up to 6 pairs on a single question)
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/suggestvoterquestion
wow, thanks for you're effort. It was built last week and is in beta, we are showing to invite constructive criticism..., and all the quotes were taken from online sources...maybe there are erros...it is in Beta...
I don't know the answers in my head either and it is an open book exam...it begs people to do research....and causes them to learn
You cannot fail the test as it sits, b/c it keeps you on the question till you get it correct...so it becomes a learning tool... so you have inaccurately levied a portion of your criticisms...
The software it runs on is wel developed Quiz module at Drupal.org...we are still experimenting with setting it up. Calling people idiots, in the manner you do..is....the definition of idiocy.....more at Trolling and dragging down a conversation with inaccurate claims designed to confound others...
If you have some good questions that would be helpful in this, please post them here:
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/suggestvoterquestion
Perhaps I was rude, but I'm a black man and I know how these types of polls were used to keep my ancestors from voting. Resurrecting an old idea from the former slave southdoes not make me happy.
not sure how this one could be leveraged that way, so, please explain and let us see if a safeguard can be devised...
Those old Poll Tests were essentially intelligence tests to keep blacks (largely uneducated) from voting. Your intelligence test would have the same effect.
no, b/c the test is just to participate in online votes debates.....anyone can still go vote....this is just a test to help us get on same page, before we enter into serious online debates...to keep the conversation quality up..
if online voting were startede, it should also make sure hand counted ballots are also used again for those who are not, or do not want to vote online.
This is how i see it anyhow...your thoughts?
I have one that does not promote "mob rule"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71752240/A-Vision-for-a-New-Democracy
this leaves everything about the same..creates another house of the legislature called "The populace" which is an internet voting platform..Any law must go though all three houses before it passes...
I like it :)
like american idol.
maybe in the future it could be done. good luck getting congress to vote for it though, lol. with their ridiculous salaries for life on the line. we're talking about your tax payer dollars that are supposed to go into their pockets. no, it will be shot down today but don't give up. great idea
agree,
I think we need to raise up a replacement shadow government...then have them hand it over to the people....
Show we are responsible and got it together with a social and economic plan that is popularly supported
Re-read what I wrote. The House of Representatives would not disappear. They would still meet per usual, and draft laws, and collect their salaries. But they would no longer vote. Instead the House of Reps would use direct voting (by us) for each bill.
The old system is NOT working. I think you are on the right track. Electronic voting is too easily corruptible as shown in the last decade of elections.
Dont forget that they also function to introduce legislation. Another thread included that they only propose a few bits each week, but without some kind of control, can you imagine the flood of garbage that would be impossible to wade through? How would you propose working that out?
No offense but you need to read more carefully. "Whenever the representatives produce a bill for voting..."
Thanks for being kind in pointing that out. :)
[Removed]
make voter fraud much easier for the dems. great idea.
[Removed]
This is pretty dumb.
That is a stupid idea. For one, there are alot of households that do not have have internet, especially the poor and second i dont always agree with the other people in my household. So who would get the one vote from my house? Think people ...or do you think whe should fork out the money so everyone can have a computer and internet? Where would that money come from? We (the USA) are broke. This mivement needs priductive ideas like stoppingall of the free trade agreements so we can get jobs back.
[Removed]
I dont know where you got the number that 99.99%of american households have phone lines because in my experience of teaching over the last 25 years only about 66 (estimate) have phones guess they dont get a saynd again who gets the one vote in my house when we dont agree.
[Removed]
The end result would be bills that were compiled with an intended legal ambiguity. We would vote and then they'd do whatever they wanted to anyway.
On the other hand, we could have voted down the stupid TARP bill and Bailout bills that handed 1500 billion of our dollars to the bankers and corporations.
The ability of people to vote down Thieving corporate welfare bills from leaving the House is an important power..... one which we don't presently have.
Yea, it is a problem... we need a compromise. Any suggestions?
[Removed]
That sounds so accurate and secure.
The more I read these comments
The more I realize many of ye have no clue how our government works. Especially when you refer to the House of Representatives as "senators". Really???
For those that don't know, Congress is divided into two houses. The People's House (representatives) and the States' House (senators). No bill passes without the consent of both, and even then it's still not law. It's just a bill. -
Do you really believe that Americans are wise enough to spend 30 hours a week - as congress of 300,000,000 discussing knowledgebly about tax reform? The TP tactic - to mire the government in garbage - such as the recent "motto" issue. This sounds like a conspiracy to block our entire country with a process that will not work. Direct democracy - like so many other ideas shared here sound so "pretty" - but are absolutely impossible to implement in the REAL WORLD.
If you have a brain tumor - you dont remove the brain, you remove the tumor. The tumor is the economic - rather than voter - power that has taken over our government.
A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United is the key.
Theories - philosophies - technologies - are not the answer.
We have all devoted so much time architecting ideas into plans that may be very satisfying but just will not work in the real world. I would never want to quash these brilliant creative minds, but I would ask them to consider how much more they can help America and the world if they were all working towards a common, popular achieveble goal.
Idealism can be channeled into great things - look at the Peace Corps. Or we can be the Shakers.
They only need to vote once a week. That takes 1 minute, plus a little bit of time to read the bill that the Representatives in the House have submitted to us. - Or the voter could simply abstain if he don't feel knowledgeable enough to vote either Y or N.
It is not direct democracy. All it does is change ONE little thing. Instead of the Representatives voting aye or nay or H.R. Bills, the People do it directly. It eliminates the need to phone-in and tell the Reps how to vote, because now you can do it directly.
Any "bad laws" that came out of the House would be blocked by the Senators. Or the President (veto). Or the Supreme Court (declaring bills unconstitutional). Or the States (nullification per the 10th amendment).
It is still a Republic... still Rule by Constitutional Law, not the mob.
Nullification does not exist: These (Southern Nullification of Integration of non-White students into the schools during the 50's) attempts failed when the Supreme Court explicitly rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, again holding that the states may not nullify federal law. Nullification was shot down time and time again since it was first proposed in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 - no other state agreed to the idea at the time - as we had just failed as The Confederated States of America.
Also - I can see Internet voting with it showing the district exactly how the area voted - but the final vote is actually decided upon by the rep. (Electoral college style). This will reduce chances for online fraud and make it more of an active polling system where the citizens can see if the rep is following the wishes of the people... if not over x amount of votes I say instead we add in a Vote of No Confidence system (Recall on Steroids)
Nullification has been used multiple times. The most successful example was when the Northern States refused to round-up blacks and send them to the south, per the Fugitive Slave Act. They declared it unconstitutional and nullified the law. (Which gave Harriet Tubman and other blacks a place to seek asylum.)
Another example of nullification that is happening right now - California declaring marijuana to be legal for dispensing, even though Congress claims it is banned.
Choice of not acting under a law, does not actually make a Constitutional argument, it just makes it ignoring the law on the books - choice of enforcement. However should there say be someone in the DEA that get's a stick up their rear about it, then they could under Federal Jurisdiction raid any and all locations, they just choose not to right now.
Choice of enforcing a law and like a said a Constitutional basis for that being permissible are very different things. Nullification does not actually exist in the eyes of any and all rulings and precedents of the United States of America. Civil disobedience and ignoring said laws however does occur - though if the Federal Government decides it is a big enough issue - they can require enforcement.
I am not a fan of such heavy handed action in many circumstances - just making a clarification on Constitutionality and rulings on such...
Clearly the central government has grown too big and dominant, if it thinks it can overrule California law that allows medical marijuana (or homosexual marriage, or whatever).
The States should call a Constitutional convention, dissolve the present government, and start over with a clean slate.
All other States must agree by rule (3/4 or was it 2/3 - I think 3/4 but would need to look it up) to the dissolving the Federal Government. The Federal Government doesn't THINK it can overrule California Law - it KNOWS it can overrule it based on Supreme Court rulings as well as all States and Territories aside from Virginia and Kentucky rejecting the changes presented in 1798.
So nullification was rejected by the Founders, it was rejected by current (relatively) rulings of the Supreme Court, we had a War over this very issue and even the Confederacy argued about it's nullification issues because without a strong center you might as well just have several separate countries.
We tried the State = Stronger than Federal once already, Our country failed and we almost broke apart to the point of returning to British Rule. The failure of the Confederated States of America is what prompted the Founders to seek a stronger central Government.
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~George Santayana (IE: Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it)
[Removed]
this is idiotic.
Givin this logic, we could also outlaw black people, or gays.
get real.
Get a real agenda people...
Stop with the unicorns and cornpone gimmicks
The Constitution would forbid that action. Any attempt by the House to pass such a law would quickly be rejected b the Senate, vetoed by the President, or overturned by the Supreme Court, because it violates Homosexuals and Blacks constitutional rights.
Just like the Constitution forbids the creation of a national healthcare system? Like it forbids the excutive unilaterally going to war (Libya)? Like it used to forbid the collection of taxes on personal income? Like it only authorizes government to contribute to the common welfare, not to the welfare of individuals? How exactly does the Constitution limit government power in any way, these days? It's just a piece of paper with ideas on it that needs to be upheld by the "public servants" in government, the men of honor in the military, and you The People. Without those to defend it, the Constitution is just words on paper to be ignored by those who seek power.
[Removed]
so what would this do then?
the house passes shit all day long that is rejected by the senate or is unconstitutional (and sometimes put into effect anyway).
To block stupid shit like the TARP banker bailout and the Megacorp Welfare stimulus bill. That's 1.5 trillion that never would have passed if the People had a direct referendum in the House of Representatives.
Then nothing ever would pass, except handouts. Everyone will always vote for handouts.
Why not just give everyone a gun and say that whoever has more people on his side at the end of the week can pass the bills....
[Removed]
Internet voting = fraud( more than usual from the dems)
Please back that up with some citations.
Intriguing. Sounds good but who would regulate?
The Congressmen in the House. The Senators in the Senate. The various spinoff agencies (EPA, FDA, FBI, etc). The president/executive. And of course the Courts.
All would act as regulators, plus be bound by oath to the constitutional law.
That would be a funny experiment. The problem is that most Americans have no idea about politics, laws, etc... You need very smart people to understand how a law will affect the system. Why would you want to trust some fat guy eating hamburgers and watching Jerry Springer reruns to make crucial Senate decisions that will possibly change your life and those of your kids?
And, what is with your idea of 1 vote per household? Do you want my wife and I to kill each other over that vote!
No offense, but please read more carefully. The Senate would not be changed and would still consist of 100 Senators voting aye or nay (like they've done since 1789).
My turn:
Why would you trust your fate to the House critters who received millions of phonecalls, of which 80% were against the bailout bill, and yet they voted "aye" anyway??? They were not doing their job as representatives. They were serving their corporate masters on Wall street.
If I was a US citizen I would not trust my Senators for the very reason you describe. I would attempt to create a system like in Canada where money is not cemented with politics.
I reread your post and I still don't understand. You seem to be implying that each person including big fat hamburger eating Jerry Springer viewers would have a vote instead of the Senators, but in your reply you seem to be saying the Senators would still be the ones voting. What did I miss?
Let me quote the original post: "Leave things the way they are" but replace the House of Representatives "ayes and nays" session with direct voting by internet. Whenever the Representatives produce a bill for voting, all 100 million homes would login and cast a vote. (The Senate would still remain the States' House.)"
i.e. The Senate would not change at all. And the House would not change either, except they would no longer vote. (We would be voting directly once or twice per week.) It's actually a minor change overall.
That is how I understood it the first time around. I'll ask my question again. Do you really want your big fat cheeseburger eating Jerry Springer watching politically uneducated American neighbor casting votes that could change your life and the life of your kids? The answer is no, you do not.
Clearly you didn't understand it else you would not have said, "some fat guy... to make crucial Senate decisions". The Senate would not be run by referendum. That is not what I proposed in the OP. ANYWAY: Yes. Just like Jefferson I trust the People more than corporate-bought politicians. Furthermore I suspect the uneducated voters would be drowned-out by educated voters who actually care (us).
Also the Fat Cheeserburger guys would only be able to vote on bills written by the Congressmen and they will not write stupid bills (example: giving everyone free lexuses). That just wouldn't happen. And even if such a bill did manage to pass the House Referendum (highly unlikely), the intelligent Senators in the Senate would vote it down, and therefore it would never become law.
Or the president would veto it. Or the Supreme Court would overturn it. Or the States would nullify it (like some have nullified the marijuana prohibition). There are multiple government layers to prevent the uneducated cheeseburger guy from causing damage to me or you.
Have you checked education levels in US lately?
What's the point for the people to vote if the Senators can just decide whatever passes and doesn't anyhow?
The People could block stupid shit like TARP Banker Bailout Bills of 2008 and Megacorp Welfare/stimulus Bills of 2009. If we had the House Referendum that I am suggesting, they never would have passed and we'd all be 1.5 trillion richer
But the big fat American cheeseburger eating ... could still block laws that should pass. What you propose is to have idiots voting for idiots. I don't see how this can help.
[Removed]
I never said they would be wrong, I said that I wouldn't want to trust my life and those of my kids with the decisions made by my big fat cheeseburger eating Jerry Springer watching politically uneducated neighbors. I don't believe in the solution of many idiots voting for idiots.
[Removed]
Really? You think there's voter fraud now just put it on the internet so any hacker can run the country.
There is such a thing as Secure Socket Layer and PGP to ensure 1 vote per home.
Lol if you think there is such a thing as a secure website I have this really nice bridge for sale.
tyranny of the majority...
I may prefer the tyranny of the majority rather than the tyranny of the 1%
there's a reason every civilization in history avoided direct democracy...
[Removed]
Athens had a direct democracy on and off for about 200 years...voting was limited to Males with military service...only about 20%-20% of eligible voters actually participated at any given time
Why so low?
I am not a scholar of the social history of ancient athens. But, my guess would be apathy
"If we had that kind of system, the Banker Bailout Bill (TARP) would have been voted down. Ditto the Megacorp Welfare Bill (socalled stimulus). 1.5 trillion would not have been stolen from taxpayers to bankers/ corporations."
Yeah, well so would the Civil Rights Act.
(1) Which one? There were four Civil Rights Acts. One in the 1860s which passed easily. Another in 1870s which also passed easily. A third in the 1950s which was defeated by Democrats and then the fourth in the 1960s which the Republicans managed to pass despite filibustering by the D party. So which one are you speaking of? Please be more specific.
(2) If that is the will of the People, to reject certain laws, who are you to say they are wrong? Are we a democratic Republic or not? Is a government of, by, and for the Will of the People, or not?
(3) The SCOTUS already ruled in the 1890s that blacks must be treated the same as whites (per the constitution), and in the the 1950s that segregation violates principles of equality and must end.
The Supreme Court rulings were the most important changes in race relations. Far more important than the civil rights acts.
"If that is the will of the People, to reject certain laws, who are you to say they are wrong?"
Absolutely I'm saying that popular opinion does NOT equal right. It's (probably) the will of the people that homosexuality be "outlawed." If that's not the case now, it certainly would have been a few years ago.
You really want to put abortion to a public vote? You want "the people" to decide which weapon systems to develop, and which to ditch (I know, you probably want to ditch them all but I don't consider that to be a responsible view of the real world). How to deal with immigration?
Not me. I want to elect qualified representatives and make sure they retain qualified staffs (experts) to evaluate proposals and make decisions on my behalf, because (unlike many here) I don't claim to have the expertise to make such decisions. I know that's not the view of most on this site. So be it.
Elect representatives who (generally) agree with your view of the world, and let them do their jobs.
Just because an idea is popular does not make it right. Surely you won't argue with that... will you?
They can't. It violates the law (Constitution). And wouldn't pass the Senate or be signed by the president or survive Supreme Court review. You bring-up things that would never make it to the level of law, because the constitutional law & bill of rights supersede a low-level House bill.
Those people would still be there inside the House of Representatives. They would be the ones writing the bills, setting-up committees, and so forth. All that would change is the final passage by voting (it would be by referendum, once a week).
How come they passed TARP bailout bill, even when 80% of americans were against it? Clearly they are not voting in the correct way. They are Not acting as representatives when they ignore the people back home. All legitimate authority derives from the People
LOL, okay. I may have taken direct democracy further than was intended (thank goodness!).
I still want nothing to do with it. Aside from the huge problem with legitimacy of the vote, I think you're creating an environment ripe for (a) massive gridlock and/or (b) undue political pressure on citizens and graft (buying votes); and (c) just plain bad decision making by masses of uninformed citizens (sorry, but that's a fact, jack.)
Anyway, I know I'm in the minority on this. I support campaign/banking reform, but not having Jethro Bodine voting on National Security issues.
I simply think if you'r going to have a "People's House" as one of the pieces of government, then it ought to have the participation of the people (the one-per-week referendum). We don't have that now.
Also I think gridlock in government is good. Gridlock slows things down so there's time to think about the negative consequences of these laws. When they hurry, we get trash like the Patriot "spy on americans" Act. (Another law I doubt would have passed a referendum by the people.)
Oh, and I was referring the CRA of 1964. I don't have any empirical data to support my comment... but I suspect that in 1964 a popular vote would not have been kind to blacks. And regardless, the very possibility that the "mob" could by sheer numbers vote to subjugate the rights of the individual is enough for me to disregard a call to "direct democracy."
Please explain how that would happen?? We still have a Bill of Rights which protects blacks right to equal treatment under the law. No voter referendum in the House can change that.
No because the U.S. Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. It's still a Republic (rule of law) albeit replacing the "ayes and nays" with direct referendum. The majority could not pass any law that violates the Bill of Rights.
Plus we'd still have the Congressmen doing the day-to-day routines of drafting the laws. They would never submit a bill for consideration that infringed upon minorities (such as deporting all blacks to africa).
Plus the President could veto any unconstitutional bill, and the Supreme Court would still overturn anything that violates the Bill of Rights.
That is such a bad idea it is hard to put into words. One thing though - most people in this country DO NOT VOTE. Or if they do, they vote only in Presidential elections.
Having the "voters" doing legislation via internet when most don't even vote now would lead to catastrophe.
You mean a greater catastrophe than the one we have now?
Look what the great "Hope Change" Concerts of 2008 brought us. A thousand boatloads of people who normally don't vote, have no idea what policies they are voting for, and no real sense of what they brought down upon themselves and their neighbors. Probably a great number of which are still sitting at home awaiting their private "stimulus" check that will turn the tables and make them rich.
I'm not sure it could get any worse than what it has become
Who cares if they don't vote?
The right to vote also includes the right Not to vote, just as the right to speak includes the right not to speak. You're trying to create a problem where none exists.