Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The people should have the power to veto a presidents decision.

Posted 12 years ago on March 2, 2012, 9:10 a.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We elect representatives to study and develop regulations to govern our society. But once agreed upon those bills should be presented to the people for a final say. We should not be voting on the person representing the bill , but the bill itself. Similar to direct democracy with the exception the house has already signed the bill and the people are given a chance to review and overturn or support.

56 Comments

56 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

organizing a "People's Veto" is very powerful....

it starts out... with implementing a "polling system".... which is the first step to a direct democracy "voting system" ...

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

This could be done independently and can take on issues that are currently being debated in the House and Senate. Imagine the horror to members of the House when the people vote on the same bills that they do; and the people's vote is published every day. Picture the interviews on CNN with the Congress Person who just voted opposite from 90% of the folks in their District.

This is a huge opportunity to put the issues in front of the noise that takes up space in the press today. Start with one or two key lime-light votes per week.

Sounds like a great business opportunity; we can sell ad space to the different lobby groups. Sorry, I got carried away there..

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

Even if the public vote would have no official authority, it would give the public an opportunity to engage have their vote heard.

We should have a site on this , where current bills being discussed in congress can simultaneously be discussed in an open forum. With all the facts presented in an opening statement. And a final vote by participants. I would think members of congress would be interested in the views and ideas of the people. It would be a site beneficial for everyone.

Great idea !

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

So how do we execute?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 12 years ago
[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

That site reads like a big step. There would be tremendous resistance to this by the government.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 12 years ago

Of course there would be a lot of resistance; that's why the majority of Americans would have to demand this change - but you can't start a fire without a spark. If the government truly works for the people; then they can also be fired. Enough people have to say enough!!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

~From the Declaration of Independence

Who wouldn't like the opportunity to veto bills like - Bush tax cuts, the patriot act, NDAA, 30,000 drones over the US, WARS, etc. ..............................

We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed. ~Thomas Jefferson~

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

Please take the lead. You are doing fine and have my support.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

So now the heavy lifting begins.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

You are right. It would take a well educated team to run such a website. To continually update the bills and proposals being discussed in congress with absolute accuracy is no small task. I would recommend jart for this.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

Well, I am a person of ideas and suggestions.

May I suggest an unofficial-congress website, where current bills can be discussed and debated on an open public forum. There are many voices and highly knowledgeable persons that would appreciate a chance to speak. A basic starting point for discussion and development , and a place where citizens can interact and be heard. A public platform with the ability to vote on bills before they are passed in congress. It would give the people a voice. In an unofficial context. The few media outlets that we have are too censored and many voices go unheard.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

A discussion on the technical issues ...

The Design & Building of a Secure Online Direct Democracy Voting System (276 posts)

http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/forum/topic/the-design-building-of-a-secure-online-direct-democracy-voting-system/

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

There will be incredible resistance to any attempt in changing the way we elect gov officials.

Why not leap-frog the system by creating a tool that lets the people vote directly on the laws currently under consideration and then publishing the results? The impact would be felt immediately. This is possible now and could be up and running in a few weeks.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

I agree ... simply put it in place as a "Polling system" ... and then move it to official voting status...

there are security issues ... existing on-line polling systems are not secure yet ... ie America Elects ... etc.... there is one in France that looks pretty good ... read the discussion if your serious ;)

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

The focus of the link seems to be on changing the election process. There will be insurmountable resistance to this.

There is no huge obstacle to having the voters in a particular district vote on a bill that affects them in real time. Compare that vote to the vote of their CP and then publish the results. This approach can be done on a small scale, district by district, and can have an impact immediately.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

Pick a congress person (CP) that is particularly prone to voting against the wishes of the folks in their district. Target that CP. Promote the voting tool (we need a catchy name for it, 21stCenturyDemocracy.com?) in that CPs district, then publish the voting results. The site will get better attraction if it initially points our glaring discontinuities.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

Our gov was formed at a time when it took two weeks to travel by horse from Philadelphia to Washington. Today we can communicate instantly, and spend 3 hours a day watching TV.

Why not change the way the US House operates? They typically vote on about 3 meaning bills per week. Let the House members keep their jobs, but their role is to construct the bills and educate the people on the meaning and impact. Each Thursday night there will be a prime-time show (the best reality show ever) where the people vote directly on bill passage. This change would have the happy consequence of virtually eliminating party rule since independents, greens, communists, and the Martian-Purple-Alien parties would all get a vote. It also dramatically reduces the influence of special interests on individual House Members. Keep the Senate in place to protect States rights, the Presidents keeps executive power for rapid response, and the courts protect individual rights. Just change the House for starters.

This is all technically possible now; the resistance will come from the ones that have to give up power. Let’s see how many of them are really for the 99%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

I am thinking we should gave an experimental / mock election on this forum ?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

Possible, but another tool is needed. Perhaps a separate site with the necessary tools but linked to this site. There has to be some thought into the construction. If the tool is launched and it has a lot of flaws it will be held up as an example of why not to do this.

A partner is needed. Maybe an organization that is expert at creating similar tools. Amazon, Ebay, Google, or some smaller entity.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

You are right all the way. we may fail our first few attempts. In doing so we will learn. It's a process of growth. I love having the freedom to grow.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

no congress should make the decisions

and the people should have a right to veto congresses decisions

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

The intent of this thought was to remove absolute power from the leader. We pay them to work for us with their expertise , and present to us solutions which we should have the power to accept or decline. It's like hiring a dentist, he will advise the work to be done, but we give the go ahead.

[-] 1 points by HoarFriday (27) 12 years ago

Interesting is that, years ago, the second place finisher in the presidential election became the vice president.

I also think along these lines that all representative should be required to make all legislation available to the voters and be BOUND to vote per their wishes on each and every matter.

This way, the bi-party scam is greatly diffused.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

Yes , I personally believe we should be voting on policy/ issues and not on people.

[-] 0 points by HoarFriday (27) 12 years ago

If our democratic republic worked like it actually should, it wouldn't matter what the people elected believed or wanted, not to the extent that it would have any significant bearing over wishes of the people.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

Yes well why doesn't it ? We need an additional " check and balance". The people should overrule the final decision. This would certainly trump any concerns of money in politics. If our mainstream media was honest they would be keeping the public informed.

[-] 0 points by HoarFriday (27) 12 years ago

Democracy only exists when the majority, who happen to be poor in the USA, has a voice and say, as well as though they should, in all matters and not precluded from the governing process due to not having the cheddar to fork over the price of admission.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

Well, the representatives have the expertise most of us don't. But that doesn't give them superiority of right or wrong. I just think the decisions are sometimes shoved down our throat. And I can understand why anarchist oppose the hierarchy system.

[-] 0 points by HoarFriday (27) 12 years ago

I don't buy that. I know too many of them and some are even barely literate.

Expertise? Nah.

Our government, or any laws it passed, was never intended to surpass the comprehension and grasp of a reasonable person.

Now, if a congressman, when elected, hires, on the taxpayer dollar (not out of his own salary) a team of 100+ advisors and assistants, it seems clear the job is more than he can handle.

Perhaps we need MANY more in congress from each state and in the senate too.

Perhaps we need a president from each state as well.........

Obviously with Obama's staff of 454 (not counting his czars) costing taxpayers 37 million yearly, he can't do the job on his paltry 400,000 per year.

For all that matter, why in the hell is our nation's capital located almost far enough north to suit polar bears?

That's stupid.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

Well okay I wasn't trying to dispute any of this. I would like to believe even with all the advisors a proper decision could be made. Although I would like that dcision to face one final vote by the people. This will mean proper explanation by our representatives if they want the bill to pass.

Thanks again.

[-] 0 points by HoarFriday (27) 12 years ago

I see it a bit differently, if a person has to have something explained to them (by a large and numerous staff of esoteric experts), because it's not written in plain English at a reasonable level, then they either have no business having any say in such a matter, or such matters have NO place in the people's government.

When many in DC, of barely average intelligence, are passing laws written by huge staffs of legal and economic experts, and they, as well as "we the people", are forced to accept and believe their explanations...

the process is flawed from the word go.

I can show you countless US legal documents, which affect nearly every citizen here, of which you could not find 5% of the population have ever read and would not be able comprehend their meanings/ramifications, even if they were explained to them by experts.

Why pass laws well beyond the comprehension of average people and then subject them to those same laws that even the elected people passing the laws seldom comprehend?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

I oftend wondered what would happen if candidates were required to take iq tests. ?

Interesting. I don't know if we should dumb down politics so every One can understand. Let's face it it is a complexity of rules and regulations.

For example. I have been advocating a couple economic solutions. A cap on profits. And there is no simple way to explain the benefits. No one on this forum gets it. And most here have degrees of one sort or another.

[-] 0 points by HoarFriday (27) 12 years ago

Consider that very concept of The People's government operating only within the grasp of the qualified voting nucleus and not exceeding those constraints.

Consider that too often, elected officials pass laws of which they never read, much less prove able to understand and they are not culpable for most anything they sign, when it comes to passing legislation.

Does it have to be complex?

No, and The People's government, for several years, actually was well within the grasp of all who had AT LEAST a real late 1800's 8th grade education, which exceeds many college educations of today.

Yes, the government needs it's capacity and reach reduced and The People need to meet it in the middle by increasing their levels of education and knowledge.

In the early 90's, a 400 page bill of legalese was eye-brow raising, even among legislators and always contained massive amounts of unrelated pork spending.

Today, 4000 pages is nothing.

It's beyond absurd.

The Plutarchy can afford braces of attorneys to write and comprehend laws for them and such actions being the norm are far removed from reasonable governance and ESPECIALLY DEMOCRACY, but, it's what we have today.

I think as far as governance is concerned, too little is far better than what now exists as witnessed by seeing how DC has evolved.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

We will have to beat them at their own game. We can do. I have witnessed many highly intelligent comments on thi forum. Far beyond my grade level. I am always impressed. And some of them are kind too.

[-] 0 points by HoarFriday (27) 12 years ago

Take a peek at this and try it.........

http://www.barefootsworld.net/1895finalexam.html

[-] 0 points by HoarFriday (27) 12 years ago

Then it should come as no surprise to you that many mediocre people would remotely discount my, or your, comments on this subject and proactively vote any of them down.

The large majority of the people are their own opposition to forward progress and taking back their government. Many believe they have good intentions and ARE CORRECT, but, are only hacks for the bi-party diversion scheme.

Doing something logical and boot-strapped to common sense is too far outside the comfort zone of many. Many more are simply bought and paid for.......

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

That remains to be seen. Perhaps it's how we present our argument that will touch the hearts of the masses. If we stand on principle.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 12 years ago

this is a great idea. it would clearly show how people feel about what congress is doing.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

so you think the "average" citizen should vote on something like the 5000 page NDAA bill because they will read it & understand it?
if you needed surgery, would you want all of the hospital's employees voting on how to do it?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 12 years ago

The chore will fall on Congress to provide a concise interpretation of the bill, not unlike the question interpretation given now on many ballot initiatives. A side benefit would be that the CPs (or their staffs) would have to actually read large bills and present cogent descriptions. There would be competition between different CPs each trying to spin the explanation, but that would serve to clarify the issues for voter.

This is not a big effort and could be started with small steps. One or two key votes each week.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

BD, that's why it needs to be integrated with a Consensus building design... and a high % percentage threshold... the problems have been worked... and inevitably a system will come ....

I do agree w/ your argument ... but having "all of the hospital's employees voting " ... often is better than having the doctor who want's to kill you voting ... ;)

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

With 300 million pairs of eyes looking over a document compared to a few hundred, yes, there will be greater awareness of what's actually in these bills.

There will be people with reading comprehension issues, or people who will be confused by the bill text. Under this system I would stipulate for the bills to be broken up into several sub-bills instead of having everything lumped together into a 5000+ page monstrosity. What is in NDAA that requires 5000 pages to convey anyway? Why isn't this a 20-page bill, max?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

Exactly

[-] 1 points by HoarFriday (27) 12 years ago

and the bills passed would be 20 pages max if our representatives jobs, lives even, depended on them knowing and COMPREHENDING exactly what was contained in each and every bill for which they cast a vote.

And it should be that way.....screw their "plausible deniablity" of being able to rationalize like this, 'of course my voting on this bill wasn't treason, I didn't read it all. Who would expect anyone to read and comprehend 50,000 pages of tedious and onerous legalese?'

The guy next to me said to vote for it and my people would get cake and ice cream.

Or maybe, 'I saw them not do it, they said they wouldn't either.'

Commonplace, accepted and equally insulting is like when many voted for TARP and had the brass nads to tell their constituents, who objected overwhelmingly in absolute majority, 'I know more about this than you.'

They should all be fed fish heads.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

There is a lot of room for improvement.

Thanks for the comment

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

thats exactly the point - IF YOU HAVENT READ THE 5000 pages - and dont have a clue whats in it - why would Mr. Jones?

Or would democracy be better served - and more likely read by 300,000,000 Americans if it was 100 bills each 50 pages?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

Yes. Frankly I think most government paperwork is too lengthy, period. Bills should be 5 pages long and only concern one specific change at a time. Our tax code should be 5 pages, max. Cut out all of these extra forms for loopholes and tax breaks that the mansion-dwellers do not need and you will not need a tax code that you have to go to school to learn how to interpret.

It really is ridiculous how much government can be optimized on this point. Instead of trying to cut social programs and make things more complicated, perhaps we should be working on simplifying internal government instead. I bet we would save a ton of money just with a little cleaning house.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

And no words longer that 6 letters!
And no punctuation except periods!
And easy enough for a third gradrer!

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 12 years ago

The USA constitution is how many pages? Or the declaration of independence ?

Reading a 5000 page document is like trying to watch c- span !

I think it is intentionally designed to be frustrating and incoherent. Reminds of the intentions of a philabuster. We the people deserve better and should demand it.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 12 years ago
[-] -1 points by newbornsheep (3) 12 years ago

hell yes

[-] -1 points by onepercentguy (294) 12 years ago

moronic idea. people with jobs and families have no time or interest for this.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

the 1%er's sure give up easy .... but I guess that's ok ... they got daddy's money to cover their ass

[-] 1 points by onepercentguy (294) 12 years ago

nah my folks are broke, i take care of them :)

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

;) good... I guess you ain't all that bad after all ... maybe jump in and help us figure out how to get everyone back to work ... ;)

hehehe .. and don't tell us to go back to school ... we already have degree's

[-] 1 points by onepercentguy (294) 12 years ago

relax dude. srsly