Skip to comments.Virtual Congress is the answer
Posted on 04/17/2010 8:17:55 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
The US Congress is a redundant body. Two hundred years ago We the people had to send our representatives to Washington DC because it was just not possible to fit all of us under the Capitol roof. Today we dont really need representatives. We can easily vote on any piece of legislature electronically while eating chips on our couch.
Technologies give us the chance to abandon the sleazy politicians and to govern through a Virtual Congress where every registered voter is a Congressmen or Congresswoman or Congress-something-in-between. Here is how the Virtual Congress can work. Every bill proposal can be downloaded into the Virtual Clerk docket. Voters can choose which bill to co-sponsor. If a certain bill gets enough support (lets say 500 000 thumps up) national Up-or-Down vote for the bill is announced by the computer.
All registered voters represent themselves and through electronic signature vote to approve or kill the bill. 60% yes votes are needed for the bill to pass. If approved the bill is printed directly on the Presidents desk. Imagine all the special interests fighting for your attention instead of circling the Capitol all day long. Imagine you getting a sweetheart mortgage deal instead of Senator Dodd. Imagine you getting Caribbean vacation instead of Rep. Rangel. Imagine you too will be called Senator not only Barbara Boxer.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigbureaucracy.com ...
Nonsense. This isn’t Cuba or Venezuela.
Now, if you rethink your idea and get the representatives out of Washington, make them stay home and telecommute to Washington, that’s a great idea. It would do wonders to stifle the influence of lobbyists and would keep representatives in their districts with their constituents.
That will probably save us money. But why do I need representative when I can vote myself?
A hacker’s dream!
Wrong. Fifty one percent of the populations would vote to take everything from the 49 percent.
Then we become a true democracy and lose all the safeguards the founding fathers gave us. True majority rule would spin out of control almost immediately. All the current “Blue” population centers would dictate our destiny.
It is all fun thinking exercise - I am not getting serious with it, but it is fun to speculate.
Besides the implication of electronic fraud by the certainly criminal Obama Regime, the very absolute last-ever thing I want to see is TV living room voting of the leech masses, period. I want it as difficult, time consuming, expensive and troublesome as it can be, frankly.
We will fight hackers instead of Acorn - every system has its fight.
How many decide now - 216 for ObamaCare?
Virtually all of Congress nees to be in the same place at the same time. They all need to see the same Tea Party movement at the same time the next time it descends on Washington en mass.
Because all it would take is one rigged vote or one bad idea with a great sales pitch to completely destroy the nation.
Take a look at our founding documents and our history. Then, look at countries run by dictators. You’ll find that all the ones run by dictators do things the way you describe (minus the internet).
Hugo Chavez loves national referendums.
Our system of checks and balances works to slow things down, so bad ideas are less likely to make it through. Some of that has been perverted or circumvented by our politicians, but we can change that if we have the will to do it. Your way will only end up in tyranny. On our current course, we may end up at the same place, but at least we have a chance to avoid it. Your way offers none.
You say every citizen would vote on every bill but who writes the bill in the first place?
I really do like the idea of getting the slime out of Washington and making them stay in their districts with the ‘little people’. I wonder how many would quit because of that.
Citizens have to organize themselves and propose bills - than they have to get enough citizen to support the bill before the bill is put for a national vote.
It is in the full text of the article.
direct democracy would be a terrible idea
Are you saying that our representatives know better than us? That we are stupid like Bill Maher think :)
Many liberals agree with you that direct democracy is a terrible idea. Check this old article:
No. I’m saying that our government is designed with a system of checks and balances for a reason.
Doing things your way is the way dictators do it. Are you saying you like dictators? Because that’s what people like Sean Penn like.
The people who elected Obama and Pelosi and Reid would be winning those electronic votes.
The executive branch is left intact, the judicial branch is left intact. The only change is - instead of representatives people vote themselves to approve or kill the bills in the legislative branch. All checks and balances are there.
My congressman has been phoning it in for a long time anyway.
They are winning now with Accorn. Why do you think they will be winning electronically.
A one way trip to dictatorship. No thanks.
Because we live in a Republic, not a democracy.
OK - you win - we’ll keep the senator and representatives.
Once in a while the thought strikes me that America is getting the government it deserves. Rotten representatives are probably symptomatic of a rotten people.
Yup, that's exactly what needs to happen.
Virtual Congress is NOT the answer.
Term limits, Fair Tax, and a decentralized government ARE the Answers.
Looks like it - we all deserve our politicians.
Ross Perot’s electronic town hall. Whoever runs the slickest commercials gets the vote of the sheeple.
Exactly - somewhere in the comments I posted a link to the TIME article from ‘95 - on Perot and Gingrich and the virtual government
It is amazing how sometimes we the conservatives are afraid of our own ideas :)
DEMOCRACY IS ANARCHY!!!!!!!!
This is a Representative Republic and it MUST remain that way or we will fail and fall into the grip of Totalitarians!
Sorry for the shouting.
How about we just replace them with people who know what the federal government is supposed to do and follow the US Constitution? There wouldn't be a lot for them to do if they just followed the constitution.
Sounds like a great way to make things even worse than they already are.
It is OK - I already conceded - you keep your Senators and Represenataives.
How is that different then now - we have a celebrity president and a liberal media bias.
Plus - we have representatives because it was impossible 200 years ago for all of us to present ourselves in Washington DC at the same time - not so today.
"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)
I'd have a hard time trusting a government run by Internet poll.
Good one! It is true on every voting system.
Stalin also said: no people - no problem :)
You have no problem with the government that doesn’t care what the people opinion polls say and ram trough every bill they want. I guess you like ObamaCare :)
A better idea would be to shut down that hellhole called DC, put in caretaker status about 10 months out of the year. They can do their business by teleconference right in their own district, where they will have to face their constituents constantly. Might take a little of that elitist wind out of their sails.
I trust ordinary people more than I trust politicians. I like the idea of a virtual country, where you have the freedom live according to your beliefs. Your tax rate would reflect this. For example, libertarians would pay the least, Democrats the most. Your taxes would be targeted to specific programs that you support. For example, a military that protects us against foreign enemies would be on my list. Also public infrastructure like roads. This would connect each person to a government they can support, knowing that their tax money is not going to fund abortions, for example. It would be very difficult, nearly impossible, for any group to dominate the others.
Real reform needs to include all three branches. The judiciary is a political body with no political accountability. All judges should be elected.
Having a Republican form of gov’t isn’t merely a conservative platform. Look at the Founder’s comments and you will see an overt fear of ‘the tryanny of the majority’.
THIS is why progressives have worked so hard to interchange the meanings of these words: democracy and republic.
I cringe everytime I hear America referred to as a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC and for good reason.
Indeed, that Congress has already acted and catered to the idea that they are a democratic body is a large part of our current problem. Why bother respecting the Constitution if you can just get 51% of the vote?
I see most of the folks in the forum agree with you. I guess it is a good first step on the way to the Virtual Congress.
I’m saying that some people shouldn’t be voting period. Not for representatives and certainly not directly on bills.
Our reps can all vote from the slammer!
Where they belong!!!!!!
Semper See Clearly!!!!!
The difference between the democracy and the republic is that the later is bound by a constitution.
Republic requires a Constitution that sets limits to the power. Republic does not require senators - our Constitution requires Senators.
The US Constitution sets a Congress - in the congress the majority rules (democracy). The laws produced by the Congress have to obey the Constitution (Republic).
Republic does not ask for politicians, but for document that sets limits and rules for the powers.
It is OK to say that my Virtual Congress is unconstitutional today. But there is no problem for it to be part of a future Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.