Your local Direct Democracy guy here.

[Truthmatters]

welcome

 

[editec]

Hello ladies and gents. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, socialist nor capitalist and most of all I'm really against representative democracy.

I support this piece of legislation with my heart and soul. I wish to spread the word and dispel the myths about direct democracy as it is proposed in its current form--which can become a reality if enough people get involved. This is the only way we'll have real change in our system.

Rest assured, I'll be chiming in on plenty of issues on the board since it seems to have a diverse group of people here discussing (although few are ever likely to be swayed). What are my political views? They're pretty much all over the place.

I think there are certain issues which ought to be decided by democratic referendum voting.

Taxation might be a good example. Going to war or nation building another example of things that might be best decided by the PEOPLE

Most issues, though, are probably better done by representational democracy.

Why?

Well if for no other reason because there are far too many things to be decided that people just don't care enough about, or are too damned complex for them to truly be able to make a qualified decision.

 

[percysunshine]

By the way? An Amendment would be required BEFORE any law could allow Direct "democracy" and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Just look at the sorry State California is in with their budget because of "direct democracy".

dubya dubya duby dot NI4D.us

Any registered voter can vote for the legislation, or amendment.

It says I am unable to post URLs until after my 15th post. But wouldn't having the people writing our laws represent our interests better than the representatives?

Actually, it is your 15th birthday.

 

[peach174]

Welcome to the board, CowboyMcCoy

Direct Democracy does not give the minority protection against the majority.
This is why our founders did not want a democracy, especially a direct democracy.
They gave us a republic, that is suppose to control the majority and is suppose to protect the individual, with God given rights. It gives freedom for all with a constitutionally limited government,with states rights. With states rights, it gives the people the power,as well as the individual, not the federal government.
We need to get back to this type of government.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Welcome to the board, CowboyMcCoy

Direct Democracy does not give the minority protection against the majority.
This is why our founders did not want a democracy, especially a direct democracy.
They gave us a republic, that is suppose to control the majority and is suppose to protect the individual, with God given rights. It gives freedom for all with a constitutionally limited government,with states rights. With states rights, it gives the people the power,as well as the individual, not the federal government.
We need to get back to this type of government.

To better explain, the founders never considered adding the people as a partnership. In other words, the legislation you can vote for now doesn't eliminate Congress nor the House nor the Supreme court nor veto power.

Have a look see at the proposed structure as it would be if we actually got off our cans and voted for the bill.

[youtube]cTWovg0F76U[/youtube]

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Hello ladies and gents. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, socialist nor capitalist and most of all I'm really against representative democracy.

I support this piece of legislation with my heart and soul. I wish to spread the word and dispel the myths about direct democracy as it is proposed in its current form--which can become a reality if enough people get involved. This is the only way we'll have real change in our system.

Rest assured, I'll be chiming in on plenty of issues on the board since it seems to have a diverse group of people here discussing (although few are ever likely to be swayed). What are my political views? They're pretty much all over the place.

I think there are certain issues which ought to be decided by democratic referendum voting.

Taxation might be a good example. Going to war or nation building another example of things that might be best decided by the PEOPLE

Most issues, though, are probably better done by representational democracy.

Why?

Well if for no other reason because there are far too many things to be decided that people just don't care enough about, or are too damned complex for them to truly be able to make a qualified decision.

At least you can see the benefits in such a bill. I'm not here to argue about it really. I just want to raise awareness, even if it will not likely happen soon. I wish it would though. All you need is a voter ID to vote for it at The National Initiative for Democracy

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Welcome to the board, CowboyMcCoy

Direct Democracy does not give the minority protection against the majority.
This is why our founders did not want a democracy, especially a direct democracy.
They gave us a republic, that is suppose to control the majority and is suppose to protect the individual, with God given rights. It gives freedom for all with a constitutionally limited government,with states rights. With states rights, it gives the people the power,as well as the individual, not the federal government.
We need to get back to this type of government.

By the way, it does give you protection against the majority. The majority of your votes get sold away for other people's interests. Or have you liked what's gone on for over the past decade? Think about it. That's all I'm asking.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What makes the citizenry incapable?

Because they’re human and imperfect, subject to hate, ignorance, greed, stupidity, and arrogance…

…and that’s just on USMB…

To better explain, the founders never considered adding the people as a partnership.

Incorrect.

The House is the people’s venue. And they too are subject to the rule of law.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

What makes the citizenry incapable?

Because they’re human and imperfect, subject to hate, ignorance, greed, stupidity, and arrogance…

…and that’s just on USMB…

I've noticed a few belligerents and reactionaries. But when it's all said and done, we can vote on it. Then, like I've explained, there is the House, Senate and us. So the law making bodies make up 1/3 of the legislators. You shouldn't worry too much about the malcontents. We know who they are, even if they post a lot of garbage.

To better explain, the founders never considered adding the people as a partnership.

Incorrect.

The House is the people’s venue. And they too are subject to the rule of law.

I don't think 435 Representatives/legislators are "the people". But now we'd get down to semantics and I hate those sorts of arguments. I do get your point, but I take a slightly different look at its structure.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What makes the citizenry incapable?

Because they’re human and imperfect, subject to hate, ignorance, greed, stupidity, and arrogance…

…and that’s just on USMB…

I've noticed a few belligerents and reactionaries. But when it's all said and done, we can vote on it. Then, like I've explained, there is the House, Senate and use. So the law making bodies make up 1/3 of the legislators. You shouldn't worry too much about the malcontents. We know who they are, even if they post a of garbage.

To better explain, the founders never considered adding the people as a partnership.

Incorrect.

The House is the people’s venue. And they too are subject to the rule of law.

I don't think 435 Representatives/legislators are "the people". But now we'd get down to semantics and I hate those sorts of arguments. I do get your point, but I take a slightly different look at its structure.

Direct democracy does NOT work in large groups. It becomes mob rule. The majority decides issues and can easily terrorize or destroy the minority.

Once again I point you to California. They have a mechanism for the people to create legislation via the ballot system and because of it about 60 percent of their budget can not be changed altered or fixed no matter the problem or concern. Mob rule is NOT what we want.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Because they’re human and imperfect, subject to hate, ignorance, greed, stupidity, and arrogance…

…and that’s just on USMB…

I've noticed a few belligerents and reactionaries. But when it's all said and done, we can vote on it. Then, like I've explained, there is the House, Senate and use. So the law making bodies make up 1/3 of the legislators. You shouldn't worry too much about the malcontents. We know who they are, even if they post a of garbage.

Incorrect.

The House is the people’s venue. And they too are subject to the rule of law.

I don't think 435 Representatives/legislators are "the people". But now we'd get down to semantics and I hate those sorts of arguments. I do get your point, but I take a slightly different look at its structure.

Direct democracy does NOT work in large groups. It becomes mob rule. The majority decides issues and can easily terrorize or destroy the minority.

Once again I point you to California. They have a mechanism for the people to create legislation via the ballot system and because of it about 60 percent of their budget can not be changed altered or fixed no matter the problem or concern. Mob rule is NOT what we want.

I point to the NDAA act, which could have been countered with a better bill--if only we had the power to present one to the president. Things of this nature would make it beneficial, unless you don't like due process.

 

[Grandma]

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to put everything on a ballot? If you feel things are moving too slowly now, imagine what it would be like having to wait for election day to pass laws. Of course that means the average voter will spend hours if not days at the polls reading through the mountain of proposals.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to put everything on a ballot? If you feel things are moving too slowly now, imagine what it would be like having to wait for election day to pass laws. Of course that means the average voter will spend hours if not days at the polls reading through the mountain of proposals.

In the modern day of media, there are plenty of ways they could read a said referendum before voting on it. Or, as in other initiative ballots, they can give you a summary of the law.

As it stands now, the military can declare the homeland a battlefield and place any citizen for any reason in a military prison without being charged.

 

[Grandma]

The military can?

I smell disinfo.

 

[Ringel05]

The military can?

I smell disinfo.

Disinfo or just plain ignorance based rhetoric, given what I've already read I'm guessing the latter.

 

[editec]

The technology is ready for referendum democracy.

Sadly the people probably aren't ready.

Sadder still the very same kinds of people end up running our representative democracy, so the very same kinds of idiots are still making decisions.

If you want better governance, you need better people.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The technology is ready for referendum democracy.

Sadly the people probably aren't ready.

Sadder still the very same kinds of people end up running our representative democracy, so the very same kinds of idiots are still making decisions.

If you want better governance, you need better people.

Agreed.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The military can?

I smell disinfo.

Disinfo or just plain ignorance based rhetoric, given what I've already read I'm guessing the latter.

The only ignorance is coming from you and grandma.

What do "military detention" mean?

I see, though, you're one of the, "I post more so I'm smarter" kind of guys. LOL

It takes all types, I guess.