07 Jul 10
Originally posted by adam warlockI've had so many good ideas on this forum that I'm not sure exactly which one it is that you're referring to.
The point is to give the power progressively, and in a responsible , to the people. If I'm not mistaken it was ringwet who had a real good program to achieve these things.
Ringwet if you're there, could you please link to the page in question or spell it out again.
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by EladarSweden's government expenditure is 52% of GDP. Oops.
The problem isn't with captialism. The problem is spending more money than you have. A country can never survive if it is going to tax those who work to subsidize those who do not. The reason is that you diminish what you tax and you increase what you subsidize. It is only a matter of time before those riding in the cart are going to be too much for those who are pushing and pulling it.
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by rwingettYou were talking with seitse and your plan started with 90% politcal decision making and 10% people decision making and you planned to increase the level of people participation as the general knowledge of the people increased...
I've had so many good ideas on this forum that I'm not sure exactly which one it is that you're referring to.
Does that ring any bell?
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by adam warlockYes, I remember that one. It was something like gradually transforming the US House of Representatives into a direct democratic body. There are currently 435 members in the US House. Let's say that 1% of those House members were retired and their seats (and votes) were turned over to the people themselves. That would be 4 votes in the House that the people would have. People across the nation would vote on various legislation and their total votes would be assigned on a proportional basis.
You were talking with seitse and your plan started with 90% politcal decision making and 10% people decision making and you planned to increase the level of people participation as the general knowledge of the people increased...
Does that ring any bell?
Each year another 1% of the House would be turned over to the people. The second year they'd have 9 votes. The third year they'd have 13, and so on. With 13 votes, if 60% of the people voted 'yes' on a piece of legislation, that would be 8 'yes' votes and 5 'no' votes added to the House's total.
This would give the people a gradual learning process in appropriating the process of legislating from their erstwhile representatives. In 100 years they'd have 100% of the votes. Several generations of citizens would have become acclimated to this new approach by the time it took full effect.
You could adjust the numbers, or implement it in both houses, or make it applicable to only certain legislation, but that's the basic idea anyway. Lest people think the idea is daft, it should be remembered that countries like Uruguay decide some legislation via direct referendum. This would be a way of implementing such a process slowly among a population who may not be used to the idea of direct democracy.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by rwingettMy good man that's the one I was thinking about.
Yes, I remember that one. It was something like gradually transforming the US House of Representatives into a direct democratic body. There are currently 435 members in the US House. Let's say that 1% of those House members were retired and their seats (and votes) were turned over to the people themselves. That would be 4 votes in the House that the people ...[text shortened]... ocess slowly among a population who may not be used to the idea of direct democracy.
An excellent, objective and doable plan for anyone that believes in democracy.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by adam warlockThe rapidity with which various legislation comes to the floor would probably require citizen voting to be done via the internet. People would have to register an account at a national voting site. This might seem to disadvantage the poor and those without computers, but public computers situated in voting kiosks could be made available.
My good man that's the one I was thinking about.
An excellent, objective and doable plan for anyone that believes in democracy.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by rwingettYes, but we could always throw a little bit of Bookchin into the mix. Some form of anarcho-federalism would do the trick, I think...
The rapidity with which various legislation comes to the floor would probably require citizen voting to be done via the internet. People would have to register an account at a national voting site. This might seem to disadvantage the poor and those without computers, but public computers situated in voting kiosks could be made available.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI assume that involving the citizens directly in the voting process would have the eventual effect of raising their political IQ somewhat. Especially new voters who are raised in that system. People appear to be idiots now because absolutely nothing is expected of them.
but wouldn't the statists just spend huge gobs of money on glitzy ads to convince the people to vote for the legislation that the statists want them to vote for?