Forum Post: Revamping the Voting System

Once we vote politicians into office it seems our voice no longer becomes heard and the 99% of us get lost in the quagmire of the weathy interests. Maybe we need to revolutionize the system by voting not just on the politician, but also on how they should vote once they're elected. Imagine this concept: you're a registered voter and you are able to vote on every single issue that comes before the person you elected into office and they would have to vote in accordance of how the 99% voted, not how their donors want them to vote. How could we do this? 1) Develop a system where every registered voter can go somewhere to obtain a UserID and establish a Password, just like you would to get any kind of electronic account. 2) A website is built for each candidate that details the issue coming up for a vote, as well as centers made available for people without computer access. The information will be in plain language what the vote is for, who will it affect in the voting area, as well as nationally (both positively and negatively), which way different parties would typically vote on it and why, etc., etc. This will enable people to make decisions based on understandable information and have a real impact. This information will be up for viewing at least 14 days in advance. 3) Votes can only be cast once per UserID, per each issue. 4) No corporations can vote in the system, it is limited only to living breathing human beings, not corporate "citizens." 5) The voting ends 24 hours before the roll call of each vote and the candidate must vote in accordance to the popular vote determined on line (only exceptions on #7, see below) and it will be announced what the final vote of the 99% was. This will enable us to hold the politician accountable if they vote against the public sentiment (with the exception of #7, see below).
6) Every candidate must list which corporations, PACs, big donors, etc have donated to this candidate and how much, as well as how these donors would want the candidate to vote based on their interests 7) Every candidate would be allowed to have ONLY 3 areas in which they might not vote for/against even if the public says they want them to. This assauges own moral issues/values candidates may have. But these candidates have to state up front in the election cycle, what these issues are for them and why they have chosen these three. For example, one candidate may be pro-NRA, pro-gay and pro-life and has publically declared these to be there 3 inviolable issues that they can decide to vote in accordance to their own beliefs even if the public says want them to vote in a different way. 8) This public directive on how the candidate should vote will give us a clear cut measure if the candidate is truly voting the way we want them to 9) Failure to do as the public is telling them to vote will make it easier for us to recall them because they would have to sign a pledge to vote 100% in accordance with the public votes (with the exception of their 3 personal issues they have publically declared) 10) This would remove them from the control of the powers to be and put the power back in the hands of the 99% and let us not have to narrowly define what the 99% want or what Occupy Wall Street wants. Instead let it be a fluid expression of what the 99% in each area would like to see happening.