Democracy 2.0 , I want It! Lets vote away the flaws in it!

[jjtroy912]

If you haven't heard of democracy 2.0, the idea is simple. We all get online and vote on all legislation. Woot Woot, I'm the BOSS! Now go do some research for more information. I'll provide one page, which I am in no way associated, with what I think is a decent outline for democracy 2.0 . https://thedemocracytwoexperiment.wordpress.com/ . When the author says something to the effect of , for more info on the patent click here, Do it, it helped me understand further.

I want my idealistic democracy 2.0. I love America and I think democracy is great, but I don't think we should stop improving it. I also think that the current system has gone off the rails, and yes the current election is driving me to think so. The idea is not to remove government, just to change how decisions are made. This is not suggesting any rebellion, sorry, but a reformation of the government already in place. Heck I still want a president, I just want to tell him what to do. I believe that anything is possible, caveat~ It's just a matter of how much time and effort.

That being said, can we begin hashing out the issues? I don't want any "It won't work!" I want "It won't work if we don't fix this specific issue." . Then we begin to toss out ideas of how to fix said issue. I'll start! It won't work if we don't provide access for people without internet access a means of voting. Oh Ok , well I think there's already a very small voting population and that just initiating this system will generate more voters than previously, and we can make an effort to provide more internet access to limited areas. Also, we make sure that voting is done in a time frame that makes it possible for people to access the site in a reasonable time and vote. HUH , HUH ...
Ok again. It won't work unless we make the amount of issues being proposed something that we can all process in a reasonable time. Oh Ok, I think we should make sure that the site stays divided into local issues, state issues, and federal issues. Also We can use the representatives that are already in place to determine the advancement of an issue that may be good but is not getting enough attention. Of course we would maintain the ability to veto any petty law they may push through based on lack of attention.

Wow this is gonna take me a lot of time and effort, and even thought i'm always right, I suppose everyone else should have a say too. I really believe that if many of us develop this idea further we may reach a point at which we have an actionable reform that could be applied peacefully to our current government.

 

[BigShow]

To start with I want to keep the Republic the founding fathers gave us. How are you going to keep hackers from messing with the results?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Not quite sure where to start. No. Hell No. Or **** No. Or perhaps Are You ****ing Insane.

There is a reason this country wasn't set up to be a democracy. You could perhaps ask Socrates for part of the reason.

 

[Woobie]

Look at INGO. A community of generally like minded people, who are more savvy in most things than the average American. We can't even have a group buy of AR15 lowers without people having a meltdown. And here we can ban people.

Now take the extremely heterogeneous population of the U.S., add in the fact voters can't get temp banned for being dumb, and top it off with the fact that opinions in America are driven on the 24 the news cycle and whatever memes are currently popular on social media, and you have a complete disaster.

We would be at war with Russia, guns, free speech and some religions would be banned, Wall Street would be a park full of homeless college students, minimum wage would be $75 an hour and a kitten would be president.

Now I know we're not that far from this already, but democracy would make it so much worse.

Think of the power a social media site would wield by allowing or banning certain viewpoints? Zuckerberg would rule the world.

As broken as it is, I'm much happier dealing with the republic we have, than the vagaries of a democracy.

 

[cobber]

Assuming 51% of "the people" want to burn gun owners at the stake, then what happens?

No thanks.

Fix the system? Make all legislators and judges pass a thorough test on the Constitution. And especially the 10th Amendment.

 

[HoughMade]

We knew it wouldn't work when Ross Perot started talking about it.

I'll just come out and say it- the country is full of dumb people. I'm not talking about people who philosophically disagree with me. I'm talking about people who can not and will not even try to understand the complexities that come with government. It may approach or exceed 50%. We may blather on about how simple things should be...but that is not now and has never been the case.

That can't be fixed.

Further, do we really want to cede even more power to New Yorkers, Californians and Chicagoans, etc.? Our system is set up, through the Senate, to limit the power of states with higher populations. This keep the urban "elites" from overriding the "flyover country" on a whim.

Pure Democracy will not work because simply being in the majority makes you neither wise, nor right.

..and of course, to protect the right to vote, the gvt. will have to provide internet, wifi, and internet connected devices to every person as an entitlement.

 

[eldirector]

I'd settle for getting back to our Federal Republic. The Feds have a job, and they should stick to it. The States each have a job, and they should stick to it. The People all have a job, and they need to stop slacking off and get to it.

And why won't a pure democracy work? Because more than 50% of the population are on the government teat. Think they will vote to wean themselves, or take more?

 

[rob63]

The goal of this project is to give all of the decision making powers to the very same people who have failed at electing decent representatives because they are so uninformed and easily fooled. Did I understand that correctly?

Sample question: "Should the crime of being accused of rape be punished by a sentence of at least 10 years?"

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[actaeon277]

So all the decisions would be made by people that have time to do the voting. Such as people that don't have a job, and want more stuff.

As mentioned before. What about a majority voting to take away rights?

 

[oldpink]

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
-James Bovard

'nuff said

 

[BigShow]

I really find it disturbing that how many people in this country think our country has a democracy. After this was posted I asked close to 30 co workers today what form of government the U.S. has. 25 of the 30 said a democracy. Did that many people not pay attention in government or history class? I mean I was very far from a A student.

 

[cobber]

2) Morality is a social construct. There is no objective right and wrong. Most of what we consider to be “moral” (such as legislation criminalizing killing or raping) is actually only accepted as good not because of what it says in a magic book, but the fact that it benefits society as a whole to criminalize these actions. There are people who think drugs are good, abortion is bad, and all guns should be eliminated. Regardless of what you and your buddies think is right, there will always be others who disagree. You can’t just impose what you consider moral on others without those morals providing them with tangible benefits.

Okay, so maybe raping is good. Got it...

 

[seedubs1]

So much nope. Mob rule is what this would be.



True democracy (mob rule) doesn't work. We're a Constitutional Republic. Thank goodness for that.

 

[MarkC]

We knew it wouldn't work when Ross Perot started talking about it.

I'll just come out and say it- the country is full of dumb people. I'm not talking about people who philosophically disagree with me. I'm talking about people who can not and will not even try to understand the complexities that come with government. It may approach or exceed 50%. We may blather on about how simple things should be...but that is not now and has never been the case.

That can't be fixed.

Further, do we really want to cede even more power to New Yorkers, Californians and Chicagoans, etc.? Out system is set up, through the Senate, to limit the power of states withhigher populations. This keep the urban "elites" from overriding the "flyover country" on a whim.

Pure Democracy will not work because simply being in the majority makes you neither wise, nor right.

..and of course, to protect the right to vote, the gvt. will have to provide internet, wifi, and internet connected devices to every person as an entitlement.

This is just one of many quite wise, IMO, observations on this matter. If you want to see a tiny glimpse of a form of pure democracy, look at California, with their crazy referendum system. They have passed several "propositions" that cripple good government, all because a majority of the Californian voters thought, at that moment, it was a good idea.

And California is just one of the places in the US that is loaded with both low-information voters and horribly misguided social "elites," self-appointed "leaders" who know what is good for us not-as-smart-as-them flyover state people.