Ok , start small , vote only on big ones , it should take u few minutes , I don't see any problem, majority sitting in internet nowdadays all day long ,I am sure they can spare 10 , minutes a day,but most likely they will be spending hours, it's addictive when u are player, ever played computer game?besides when your livelihood depend on it u have no choice,they will vote I have no doubtYour idea might be goofy but it could work- IF you and the rest of the voters are okay with sitting in front of your computers every waking moment of every day clicking your votes because that's how much time you'll spend if you want to vote on every single issue.
You can do it (just start with a tiny country with few inhabitants!
People of the West are slaves
- Thread starter gainpower777
- Start date
So you want a bunch of people who are largely uninformed, either because they currently dont care, or are too stupid to care, or dont have time to care because they are busy working, or because they prefer to care more about their facebook posts....
you want them to vote on everything based not on researched facts or thoughts based but on emotional issues, or poorly researched facts - with out care about the consequences or how to implement things - such as lets close the borders with Canada, until tomorrow when I want to go shopping there - in a 10 minute session each day.
And you do realise that even though you might click on button to register your vote, often some of the decisions take time to implement, so that when the next day a problem with that implementation comes up you will be required to vote on a solution to that......
Is this where theory (fantasy) meets reality.
What you are proposing is gridlock.
you want them to vote on everything based not on researched facts or thoughts based but on emotional issues, or poorly researched facts - with out care about the consequences or how to implement things - such as lets close the borders with Canada, until tomorrow when I want to go shopping there - in a 10 minute session each day.
And you do realise that even though you might click on button to register your vote, often some of the decisions take time to implement, so that when the next day a problem with that implementation comes up you will be required to vote on a solution to that......
Is this where theory (fantasy) meets reality.
What you are proposing is gridlock.
I am not saying go all in right away, we can start gradually introducing public voting on major issues with the current political system
You're including those who are obsessed with Kim Kardashian? Those who can't distinguish between "lose" and "loose"? Those who don't know the name of the vice-president? Who can't find the US on a map, much less Syria? If not, how do you decide who qualifies and who doesn't?
The US is a liberal democracy
As liberal democracy is a variant of representative democracy, it does not directly respect the will of average citizens except when citizens elect representatives. Given this that a small number of elected representatives make decisions and policies about how a nation is governed, the laws that govern the lives of its citizens, elite theorists such as Robert Michels argue that representative democracy and thereby liberal democracy is merely a decoration over an oligarchy;[14] political theorist Robert A. Dahl has described liberal democracies as polyarchies. For these reasons and others, opponents support other, more direct forms of governance such as direct democracy.
As liberal democracy is a variant of representative democracy, it does not directly respect the will of average citizens except when citizens elect representatives. Given this that a small number of elected representatives make decisions and policies about how a nation is governed, the laws that govern the lives of its citizens, elite theorists such as Robert Michels argue that representative democracy and thereby liberal democracy is merely a decoration over an oligarchy;[14] political theorist Robert A. Dahl has described liberal democracies as polyarchies. For these reasons and others, opponents support other, more direct forms of governance such as direct democracy.
"Some Marxists, Communists, Socialists and anarchists, argue that liberal democracy, under capitalist ideology, is constitutively class-based and therefore can never be democratic or participatory. It is referred to as bourgeois democracy because ultimately politicians fight only for the rights of the bourgeoisie. According to Marx, representation of the interests of different classes is proportional to the influence which the economic clout that a particular class can purchase (through bribes, transmission of propaganda, economic blackmail, campaign 'donations', etc.). Thus, the public interest, in so-called liberal democracies, is systematically corrupted by the wealth of those classes rich enough to gain (the appearance of) representation. Because of this, multi-party democracies under capitalist ideology are always distorted and anti-democratic, their operation merely furthering the class interests of the owners of the means of production."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy#Dictatorship_of_the_bourgeoisie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy#Dictatorship_of_the_bourgeoisie
Most likely those ppl will have no interest voting, but again u can't exclude them,every citizen qualifyes
Holy crap! I think I may be just what the righties have accused me of being! A Marxist, Socialist, Communist! Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek:
You forgot Nazi Fascist.