answered question
1
Vote
Vote
8
Answers
Answers
M$5.00
New Radical Law called "The True Democracy Act". Proposed by a USA citizen, March 14, 2009, revised March 18, 2009
All laws passed by Congress must be put to a general public vote and
approved by a simple majority by USA voting citizens, before they can be
enacted. Failed laws cannot be attempted again, in part or in whole, for 6
years. Full details of laws at vote must be posted and available to the
public at least 30 days prior to a vote, at public places of information,
public libraries and public schools; available free as printed document,
and as a simple text document on current electronic media in a format
requiring no cost or additional translation method; and if the
communication systems are operational, also on the public's electronic
communications networks, at secure government provided connections. The details must include a transcription of Congressional record of vote, and
their public discussions, as well as the law details.
I really would like to hear your views on this and could this possibly be set in place if the general public pushed hard enough?
approved by a simple majority by USA voting citizens, before they can be
enacted. Failed laws cannot be attempted again, in part or in whole, for 6
years. Full details of laws at vote must be posted and available to the
public at least 30 days prior to a vote, at public places of information,
public libraries and public schools; available free as printed document,
and as a simple text document on current electronic media in a format
requiring no cost or additional translation method; and if the
communication systems are operational, also on the public's electronic
communications networks, at secure government provided connections. The details must include a transcription of Congressional record of vote, and
their public discussions, as well as the law details.
I really would like to hear your views on this and could this possibly be set in place if the general public pushed hard enough?
|
Report
answers (6)
Doing this circumvents the entire reason for having a Congress. Senators and representatives entire jobs are deciding whether 1,000 page bills are good or bad. Excuse me if I say, but I don't think that people are going to have much time to read and understand a 1,000 page bill at 6:00 in the night. And then there are multiple bills to do this with. Secondly, this would be sheer insanity to attempt to gather the votes from a lot of U.S. citizens, and there would lots of dead people voting, if you know what I mean. Then there is the problem of if the bill fails to pass. It could get debated for a year, passed, not passed by the public, and left dormant for 6 years. What if it was a bailout? What if it was funding for a war? There are just too many complications, what ifs, and other confounding variables.
| Asker's rating: |
You bring up some very good points indeed! Thanks for your comment.
You bring up some good points.
Tip smokenherb for this comment
|
Report
Isn't the entire point of having a Congress NOT having to do this?
There are many reasons NOT to do this...
1. Efficiency. Take the amount of time a bill takes to get through subcommittees, committees, floor debate, filibusters, and voting in BOTH houses - it's already astronomical. And you want to add thirty days?
2. General lack of public intelligence/caring. We can't even expect people to make good decisions as to who to make their decisions for them! How do we expect "a simple majority of USA voting citizens" to even take the time to READ the bill, much less understand it?
3. Remember how much brouhaha surrounded the procedures and counting for the last election? Multiply that by the number of bills passed by Congress each year...
4. In Congress, it's easy for each member to make their individual views heard in floor debate. Not so much when the entire American public is involved...
5. SIX YEARS? ARE YOU CRAZY? Do you know how fast public opinion can change?
There are many reasons NOT to do this...
1. Efficiency. Take the amount of time a bill takes to get through subcommittees, committees, floor debate, filibusters, and voting in BOTH houses - it's already astronomical. And you want to add thirty days?
2. General lack of public intelligence/caring. We can't even expect people to make good decisions as to who to make their decisions for them! How do we expect "a simple majority of USA voting citizens" to even take the time to READ the bill, much less understand it?
3. Remember how much brouhaha surrounded the procedures and counting for the last election? Multiply that by the number of bills passed by Congress each year...
4. In Congress, it's easy for each member to make their individual views heard in floor debate. Not so much when the entire American public is involved...
5. SIX YEARS? ARE YOU CRAZY? Do you know how fast public opinion can change?
Thanks for your comment.
Our current system is a representative democracy, where citizens elect representatives to vote on laws. The system this describes is a deliberative democracy.
The biggest block to this system would be the cumbersome nature of public voting. Think of the Presidential elections- counting the votes takes a great deal of time and effort. It's expensive and time consuming, especially for small communities who can't afford voting machines.
The time to complete a vote would also be difficult. Absentee ballots need to be available in advance, and for close votes, the country would have to wait for absentee ballots to come in. It could add months to the process. Laws that are time sensitive (like emergency funding) would be impossible.
Scheduling votes would also be difficult- could you have a vote on Christmas? How about during Ramadan? Would they be done on weekdays, or weekends? The schedule of voting could have huge impacts on the results, and could be manipulated.
This idea would be very hard to implement. However, if it had enough public support, it could be passed (it would likely be an amendment, and would require more than a simple law to pass). In a democracy, any law with enough support can be passed.
The biggest block to this system would be the cumbersome nature of public voting. Think of the Presidential elections- counting the votes takes a great deal of time and effort. It's expensive and time consuming, especially for small communities who can't afford voting machines.
The time to complete a vote would also be difficult. Absentee ballots need to be available in advance, and for close votes, the country would have to wait for absentee ballots to come in. It could add months to the process. Laws that are time sensitive (like emergency funding) would be impossible.
Scheduling votes would also be difficult- could you have a vote on Christmas? How about during Ramadan? Would they be done on weekdays, or weekends? The schedule of voting could have huge impacts on the results, and could be manipulated.
This idea would be very hard to implement. However, if it had enough public support, it could be passed (it would likely be an amendment, and would require more than a simple law to pass). In a democracy, any law with enough support can be passed.
Thanks for your comment.
This would be a great solution if we first divided into 100,000 little countries. Direct democracy doesn't work well with a population over a few thousand. Remember that the Greeks had city states, and they were very small cities compared to modern ones, and only the upper classes could vote.
Thanks for your comment.
The largest problem is that for most laws the people voting would be one of:
1. Political Science Junkies
2. People voting because their Pastor or Priest told them to.
3. People voting because Oprah told them to.
I'm not sure that's who I want determining the law of the land.
1. Political Science Junkies
2. People voting because their Pastor or Priest told them to.
3. People voting because Oprah told them to.
I'm not sure that's who I want determining the law of the land.
Thanks for your comment.
What they said.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
