Since people feel politicians should never go against public opinion, and the impossibleness of getting everyone to vote on an issue is probably the main reason we have a republic in the first place, why not just get rid of the republic all together and setup a site like feedback forum #2 and let the people vote on every issue. Things like twitter could be used to setup proposals. Local governments could then turn those proposals into bills and the people could vote on them.

GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE

If you are scared of the internet, you could have it done at the local post office monthly.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM. Reason : technology is present for the first time ever. let the polls do the talking for real.]

3/22/2010 10:13:31 PM

please don't feed the troll alias

3/22/2010 10:14:07 PM

except it wouldn't have. the founding fathers wanted to avoid tyranny of the majority. you failed.

[/thread]

3/22/2010 10:15:07 PM

so public opinion polls don't matter.

no further questions your honor.

3/22/2010 10:16:18 PM

I think most people are to dumb and ignorant to know whats best for them.

3/22/2010 10:20:12 PM

which is why most people weren't granted the right to vote in the first place, lol. And no, I'm not talking about blacks and women. so don't go there

3/22/2010 10:24:13 PM

yeah, he's talking about non-landowners! come on, guys.

3/22/2010 10:43:23 PM

ya thats life liberty and the persuit of happiness


o wait


the founders were flawed?


(I'm going to hell)

3/22/2010 10:50:14 PM

contrary to what you might think, it is entirely possible to pursue happiness (learn how to spell, fucktard) without being granted the right to vote. One is not dependent on the other.

3/22/2010 10:52:36 PM

^^just move to texas, they erase from the history books any founding fathers they disagree with

3/22/2010 10:56:57 PM

^dont have to. texas writes most of the nations textbooks.


I wonder how people would feel if sacremento wrote all the textbooks.

3/22/2010 10:59:29 PM

Quote :

"so public opinion polls don't matter."

Is this about whether opinion polls should matter or do matter? Because they do matter. "Should they, or shouldn't they matter?", is a different question. And no, it shouldn't matter in the total sense -- majority support is good, but not paramount.

3/22/2010 10:59:34 PM

my point was simply that people keep saying "OMG THEY PASSED THIS BILL AND PUBLIC OPINION POLLS SHOW 56% OF AMERICANS WERE AGAINST. CALL THE COPS! WE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED"

3/22/2010 11:01:10 PM

if public opinion polls mattered in every aspect of what politicians do - i doubt we'd have integrated schools at this point

3/22/2010 11:06:37 PM

The idiocy of the electorate is a crippling problem with the current system. I see no need to make it a shitload worse than it already is.

Quote :

" Things like twitter could be used to setup proposals. "

Quote :

"technology is present for the first time ever. let the polls do the talking for real"

The rest of your left-wing brethren would shit a brick about disenfranchising their poor constituents who don't have laptops and iPhones.

3/22/2010 11:11:29 PM

oh shit

have i been grouped in association with mambagrl

3/22/2010 11:13:41 PM

^^universal smart-phones would get passed pretty quickly funded by a tax on cadilac data plans.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM. Reason : heh]

3/22/2010 11:17:24 PM

texas doesn't write textbooks, you dumb troll cunt

3/22/2010 11:22:03 PM

^^ oh Christ, a fucking smartphone entitlement?

The ultimate irony is that you want a pure democracy, yet you are a prime example of why we can't have it, and on top of that, you're too goddamn dumb to be self-aware of that.

3/22/2010 11:41:43 PM

I actually favor this. Frequent referendums that could be voted on online or at kiosks. You'd still need representatives to craft the legislation, but you could itemize it to vote by sections or allow competing bills to appear on the ballot.

At the very least extremely controversial legislation like what we've just been through should go to a direct referendum vote. Isn't that the point of referendums? To let politicians pass the hot potato?

But hey, democracy's just mob rule anyway. Fuck it I'll just continue not participating and hope everyone else leaves me the hell alone.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 11:51 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2010 11:50:15 PM

Quote :

"I wonder how people would feel if sacremento wrote all the textbooks."

Luckily we don't live in a democracy and it is not in the power of the majority to stop some of us from publishing whatever textbooks we feel like.

3/22/2010 11:58:01 PM

This is a lovely thread.

3/23/2010 12:02:54 AM

^ Would be a shame if something bad happened to it.

3/23/2010 12:17:48 AM

Quote :

"yeah, he's talking about non-landowners! come on, guys."

For what it's worth, it wouldn't be a bad idea to work on ways to restrict voting to only those who have an actual bit of skin in the game. I mean, there's a reason (aside from impracticality) we don't let other country's citizens vote in our elections. Perhaps we should limit voting only to those people who have a positive tax rate?

Quote :

"Frequent referendums that could be voted on online or at kiosks. You'd still need representatives to craft the legislation, but you could itemize it to vote by sections or allow competing bills to appear on the ballot. "

Not to pick on your post in particular, but California is a good example of why all of this would be bad idea.

[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 7:46 AM. Reason : sadf]

3/23/2010 7:45:39 AM

i'm pretty sure mambagrl is being sarcastic here, guys. at least i hope so.

3/23/2010 7:58:05 AM

Quote :

"texas doesn't write textbooks, you dumb troll cunt"

while Texas doesn't write the books, since they're the largest purchaser of textbooks, the larger textbook companies often write their textbooks to Texas standards which are then bought by other school districts across the country. Unless other school districts throw a huge fit, they'll have the same textbooks as texas.

3/23/2010 8:43:48 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps we should limit voting only to those people who have a positive tax rate? "

That would have beautiful results.

If nothing else, it would reduce the pandering and buying of votes.

3/23/2010 8:50:33 AM

I like the idea of checking to see if people filed their taxes before they're allowed to vote

3/23/2010 9:10:41 AM

Laws should rule over the people, not the whim of the majority.

3/23/2010 11:16:57 AM

Quote :

"For what it's worth, it wouldn't be a bad idea to work on ways to restrict voting to only those who have an actual bit of skin in the game. I mean, there's a reason (aside from impracticality) we don't let other country's citizens vote in our elections. Perhaps we should limit voting only to those people who have a positive tax rate?"

You're right, voting is a basic consitutional right that is far to freely given out to individuals. We should restrict it to someone who really has something to lose, how about only land owners can vote?

3/23/2010 11:24:59 AM

Quote :

"while Texas doesn't write the books, since they're the largest purchaser of textbooks, the larger textbook companies often write their textbooks to Texas standards which are then bought by other school districts across the country. Unless other school districts throw a huge fit, they'll have the same textbooks as texas."

We talked about this in another thread, but this really only holds true for certain changes and features which other states are ambivalent about. For instance, New York may prefer more text and less diagrams and a longer set of chapters on the founding of the country as opposed to westward expansion, but if it isn't worth their time and money to find a new publisher, they'll get what texas wants. By comparison, every other state is pretty much in agreement that Jefferson is sort of an important figure, so if the publisher caters to Texas, it will be worth the time and money for other states to get real text books form other publishers. This puts texas in the minority, meaning chances are, the publisher isn't going to bow to texas' will, and texas will find themselves either paying more for an alternate version or looking for a new publisher.

Quote :

"You're right, voting is a basic consitutional right that is far to freely given out to individuals. We should restrict it to someone who really has something to lose, how about only land owners can vote?"

1) It originally was a restricted right in the constitution
2) It is still a restricted right, however there are certain restrictions which are constitutionally forbidden.
3) I did not say I want to return it to a land owners only restriction.

I am also under no delusions that this will be a magical fix or that such a fix is not without its problems. Immediately I can see that one problem would be that since socio-economic status is closely correlated with race, that such a policy may be abused to disenfranchise certain races.

But one can not deny that votes are bought by promising tax money from other people. Case in point, the healthcare bill puts subsidies in place for americans up to 300% of the poverty line. By shear coincidence, I'm sure, 300% of the poverty line is also almost exactly 50% of the american population. The left buys votes promising to make rich people pay for things so you can have them for free, and the right buys votes by promising to make the lower classes pay for more things so that the upper classes don't have to pay for as much (or anything). Both sides are abusing that aspect of our system, and while it isn't perfect, certainly requiring you to at least paying some taxes before you get to decide what to do with those taxes would be preferable to what we have now.

You could also (although it would likely be impossible to implement, both logistically and due to privacy concerns), weight votes based on how much taxes you pay as a percentage of your income. Not only would this reduce pandering to the lower classes with promises of free things, but it would equally punish pandering to the rich with promises of tax shelters and loopholes.

Ultimately the point is that you should actually have a stake in the things you are voting for. Just as I shouldn't get to vote in the wake county school board elections, if you don't pay taxes into the system, you shouldn't get to vote on what happens to that tax money. I'm happy to entertain other ideas, but the system we have now is clearly problematic at best.

[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 12:59 PM. Reason : adsf]

3/23/2010 12:58:32 PM

Never go full democracy

3/23/2010 1:37:20 PM

Quote :

"But one can not deny that votes are bought by promising tax money from other people."

Your changes wouldn't change that, they'd just shrink the number of people who get promised that tax money.

I'd argue that a better justification for who should be able to vote are those who would be sent to war if a draft were instituted. Although I think the current restrictions for voting are fine.

Quote :

"Ultimately the point is that you should actually have a stake in the things you are voting for."

We all do. All voters are citizens of the USA.

Quote :

"I'm happy to entertain other ideas, but the system we have now is clearly problematic at best."

How so? Because you have some sort of conspiracy theory about how the poor run the country? This is honestly the first time I have ever heard that the POOR are running some sort of secret cabal to enslave the rich. It's quite funny actually.

3/23/2010 1:39:30 PM

I could buy an acre of land and sell the right to vote by the square foot.

3/23/2010 1:42:05 PM

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

3/23/2010 1:48:59 PM

This is the best Soap Box thread to happen in a long time.

3/23/2010 2:13:33 PM

Quote :

"my point was simply that people keep saying "OMG THEY PASSED THIS BILL AND PUBLIC OPINION POLLS SHOW 56% OF AMERICANS WERE AGAINST. CALL THE COPS! WE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED""

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

Quote :

"Opinions turn favorable on health care plan WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it."

Earlier polling suggested that while there were many against, that a lot of people changed their mind when they learned the specifics.

"In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the majority of Americans are opposed to President Obama's health-care reform plan—until they learn the details."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233890

So maybe the turn around is because all the attention of it passing and signing it has turned the media onto a discussion of the specific aspects, or maybe its because people like to be on the winning side. (on a more meaningless note, the presidential approval rating went up 5 points in the last week on gallup - which is probably meaningless because its still hovering around 50 like it was been doing for a long time now)

3/23/2010 2:31:46 PM

why do people say our republic is gone right now? I don't understand where they are coming from. If congress made some law that nobody agreed with wouldn't it still be a republic?

3/26/2010 5:12:45 PM

^ It's because they're butthurt over not getting their way. Plain and simple.

3/26/2010 5:27:26 PM

But... but... the constitution!

More seriously, the whole thing is semantics. There is some point at which a government is no longer a republic and should be called a democracy instead. It is not a value judgment, there is nothing inherent to the words as spoken to say a republic is better than a democracy or vise-versa. It is only personal preference that can discern that. But if someone is trying to explain why they are unhappy with how things have turned out, and the reason they use is their preference is for a republic, then discerning whether American should still call itself a republic or not becomes relevant.

3/26/2010 5:36:38 PM