Should we change our system to have a direct democratic vote on big issues like war

M

Mr Pink

New member
and health care reform? It seems we could avoid having all the special interests interfere with what we want and need by taking the decision for our selves. We could let the elected officials decide over most policy, but when something captivates the attention of the entire nation and sparks so much emotion, shouldn't we get to vote on it? It seems like the best solution.
Drew you make a very convincing argument.
 
I don't think it would work. The special interest still win, because they are the same ones who own the cable news media. Most people get what little information they do get from a television. The masses are heavily propagandized by the likes of FOX and MSNBC. I think it would not turn out much different, because it takes a lot of work and research to find some actual truth. Not enough people willing to do that. They just want to here someone agree with their preconceived notions and that is it.
 
With respect to War, the public doesn't actually want war and virtually all of these bills would actually be shot down, and the opposite appears to be true of healthcare reform in the U.S. with 70-80% of people supporting some form of a public option as a fallback for healthcare.

I think both of these things are an improvement over what the government has been doing of late so ...

YES
 
With respect to War, the public doesn't actually want war and virtually all of these bills would actually be shot down, and the opposite appears to be true of healthcare reform in the U.S. with 70-80% of people supporting some form of a public option as a fallback for healthcare.

I think both of these things are an improvement over what the government has been doing of late so ...

YES
 
a referendum occasionally may be helpful to our reps to make a better decision...but a tyranny of the majority ought to be avoided,,,and undue influence of the fifth estate dealt with by economically countering
their constituent support,,,mainly,entrenched tenured democrats,,,,voting on home computers would call for e mail registration.govt regulation,all sortsa horsescheise,yer lil 10 yr ole bro or sis could then register to vote,,you wanna see that?
 
Not yet. Even with the advanced media and technology, people in densely populated areas would outvote those people who live in the lesser populated areas. People in Alaska would be forced to comply with the wishes of the people in Los Angeles or even a much smaller city like Las Vegas. I think the system fairly represents all the people of the nation.

However, when large amounts of money, like that which is being spent to kill health care reform come from the private sector, the system becomes corrupted. Ban lobbying and money grubbing politicians and the system will work along the lines it was designed to.
 
Not yet. Even with the advanced media and technology, people in densely populated areas would outvote those people who live in the lesser populated areas. People in Alaska would be forced to comply with the wishes of the people in Los Angeles or even a much smaller city like Las Vegas. I think the system fairly represents all the people of the nation.

However, when large amounts of money, like that which is being spent to kill health care reform come from the private sector, the system becomes corrupted. Ban lobbying and money grubbing politicians and the system will work along the lines it was designed to.
 
I've thought that several times before and agree with you. The only obstacles in this method is that the congressmen know some things that cannot be released to the public. They are entitled to certain information that can be a major factor in deciding major things.

Also many Americans would not read the bills or be able to understand the bill. Many of these politicans were lawyers and know how to read these hundred page bills and decipher little loopholes and inefficiencies in it. It is not like voting for this man or that man, these bills can have one word that changes everything about it.

On principle I agree that we should have a bigger voice in deciding the major moves our country makes. It's our money, our future, our country and we should decide what we do with it.
 
I've thought that several times before and agree with you. The only obstacles in this method is that the congressmen know some things that cannot be released to the public. They are entitled to certain information that can be a major factor in deciding major things.

Also many Americans would not read the bills or be able to understand the bill. Many of these politicans were lawyers and know how to read these hundred page bills and decipher little loopholes and inefficiencies in it. It is not like voting for this man or that man, these bills can have one word that changes everything about it.

On principle I agree that we should have a bigger voice in deciding the major moves our country makes. It's our money, our future, our country and we should decide what we do with it.
 
Back
Top