The strategy of having elected Congress members to represent constituencies was applicable when we had such a spread out citizen population and no technology to get every voice heard.
We now have the technology available to truly have a government by the people. We will of course need congress-people, but their and their staff's role will be merely to sort through people-generated ideas (like this website)and to formulate, propose, and manage laws based on what the people vote.
Monies will be needed to create the infrastructure so that ALL people of the Union can vote, such as voting centers in every neighborhood (like an internet cafe but for voting on a regular basis).
If we are serious about a government BY THE PEOPLE, let's do it. Let's stop bottlenecking the power-load through Capitol Hill and open wide the gates of Democracy.
Comments (6)
Congress has proven corrupt, technology has matured, and so have We the People. I have voted for your idea, and would like to see it clustered with other similar ideas (this web site does not allow that), such as the NCDD idea. We will still need deliberative bodies from neighborhood to nation, but even Congress can be replaced by Citizen Wisdom Councils (Jim Rough's book, Society's Breakthrough, is really excellent).
Bottom line: we need to abolish or reinvent our government, and Congress needs to lead, follow, or get out of the way. They no longer represent the public interest and neither does the White House.
Though our representatives are fallable, so is the mob mentality. A powerful media outlet could have too much sway over uneducated voters. Our congressmen are professional public servants. And with enough transparency their actions would be guided by their constituents and not their personal interests.
I think that congress, and the house, would be beneficial at drafting new regulations, and then "we the people" vote it in or out. This may solve some of the inherent problems with direct democracy and minority discrimination.
The creation of Congress in in the Constitution created by our founding fathers as a compromise between using the Virginia Plan (House of Representatives) and the Maryland Plan (Senate). I highly doubt that the Congress can be replaced. What could happen is that we could use Internet voting to influence the way our representatives vote on the issues, but as I stated earlier replacing the Congress is most likely not a possibility.
There is an idea: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2557-4049 for an Online Citizen Participation Portal. I posted a comment there about creating a national electronic kiosk system for recording votes.
Internet voting is a good idea in my opinion, but security is a major problem on the internet. Until the security issues are WELL resolved, voting cannot be moved to the internet.
That said, we can resolve those issues. Also, I mentioned national kiosk system. For citizens living in other countries, we should be able to work out putting kiosks in our consulates in foreign nations, at the very least.
If we were to repeal the commerce clause as it is interpreted back to its original scope and purpose many of the port laden and intrusive federal government programs would go away. The idea of everyone having a vote so that our DEMOCRACY would prevail is flawed at the outset. This country is not a democracy it is a republic and no matter how hard one tries to fit that round peg into a square hole it just doesn't work in the framework as it is. Now I know that we seem to be well on the way to a form of government that does not follow our constitution in any meaningful way but it isn't too late yet. I would like to see a return to the path that allows citizens of proven character and intelligence to vote for their state legislators who then vote for members to go to the US congress.
"The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached."
For more on this go to : http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html