So we know that our elected officials do their best to ignore and trample on what the people of this country want like, oh, peace, health care, and so on. My idea is that we need a 4th branch of government aka The People. It would work like this: All legislation would be made available to the public online together with the pros and cons for a minimum of 2 months and the public would be able to vote on it during this time as we are voting for these ideas now. The difference is that these public votes would have to be take seriously. In the Senate, where there are 100 senators, The Public would get 100 votes. The votes of The Public would be required to be distributed among Ayes and Noes in the same proportion as the online voting and count just the same as senators' votes in passing or not passing legislation.
Same idea would also apply to the house of Reps.
The People would have the right to propose new laws, reconsider and rescind old laws and laws or reviews proposed by The People would be required to be discussed and voted on in The House and Senate same as laws generated by reps or senators.
Our elected officials have made careers of listening to and legislating for corporations and bankers and anybody who will give them money to get re-elected and ignoring the interests and welfare of their constituents. It's time put an end to this and reassert that this is a government BY AND FOR the people.
This would limit the ability of corporations, lobbyists and other special interests to dictate our country's laws and give the people an actual voice in government instead of lip-service one through our senators and representatives.
Comments (9)
We have a constitutional republic for a reason. Peer review and transparency is good. Public voting on individual issues is not.
And why should the public NOT vote on issues and laws? They vote for public officials who are supposed to represent THEM but instead most of them make a career of ignoring what is good for the people and cater to large, moneyed corporations and banksters instead.
Constitutional republic? If only it actually worked that way.
Our president is not actually elected by popular vote, they are chosen by the electoral college which can, if it wishes, cast an entirely different vote than what the people of a state voted. And the winner-take all system of electoral system (and election fraud) makes the whole thing a joke! Senators and Reps are not legally bound to vote as their constituents would have them do, so where is the representation? What do laws mean when there are riders--those sneaked-in provisions for special interests that gut the intent of the law or otherwise stick a knife in our backs? What do laws mean when they are selectively enforced?
I think it is high time we had direct access to what the hell our government is up to. A 50% say in government could stop the elected officials/corporate lackeys from doing whatever the hell the corporations want including oh... bailouts... wars... denying public single-payer health care...
Peer review doesn't amount to much if it is not required that the conclusion of the review be incorporated.
The problem is real, but this is not the way to fix it. Instead of tacking on another branch we should make the ones we have work as they were intended.
We need a process to quickly remove representatives who do not accurately represent the views of their constituents.
A representative should perhaps have to show that he has polled his constituents and is submitting their vote, not his own, and it should be an act of treason for a representative to vote otherwise.
The time has come to remove the barriers form total public opperation of the congress. too much coruption and insider deal making outweigh any concerns of poor critical thinking
yeah, I'm all for the treason idea. Polls, like elections, can be faked/rigged, no problem and by the time it's proven that happened, it's too late. For the moneyed corporate interests with long term agendas, the politicians are expendable pawns. So if one is removed for voting treason, another one can be popped into place pretty much immediately and the can continue ignoring the public. Who would enforce this treason idea? Would it be like Bush-Cheney who literally got a way with murder and are free as birdies right now? When the fox guards the henhouse, you know there's gonna be trouble. I think WE THE PEOPLE need to guard the henhouse ourselves.
The unfortunate thing is that representatives are very corruptible. If you remove the corrupt ones, you might have two, maybe 3 people left. And they are so
corruptible because they are not required to vote what their constituents tell them to or as they promised prior to election. (Obama, are you listening?) They can vote whatever way they like, and they like to cast votes which favor people who will give them money, cushy jobs after they're done with public "service" and help them stay in power. As it stands, there's no-one at the tiller to steer them away from passing really, really, bad legislation favoring corporate/banking interests. If We THE PEOPLE had our own 50% voice in the House and Senate, it would take a majority of elected officials AND a majority of the Public's Votes to pass something, which seems more balanced to me. The corporate interests get some votes via the senators and reps but those interests would be balanced out by WE THE PEOPLE whose interests center much more around what's good for us and our neighbors down here on main street. Just imagine what the outcome of counting what the public wants would have been over the last few decades. No bailouts, no wars, no nafta, no cafta, no vietnam, the list goes on.
Additionally, there are many things could/should be passed that no congressfolks want to touch (like bank reform) because they fear for their lives. More than one person has been asassinated for not wanting to dance to the bankers' tune and trying to reform banking and eliminate the fraud. If the public votes for something like that what are the banksters gonna do? Assassinate us all? There are so many more of us. If a congress person did that, as a single individual, they'd be much easier to target.
Basically most folks just want to live decent lives, have food and water, send their kids to school, have a healthy planet and know they will not be homeless when they get sick or old. And that's right and good. But it will never happen unless we have actual representation so that the laws that would make that happen get passed. The public may not have good info on many things due to media spin, but they CAN tell stupid ideas from good ones when they see 'em. I guess when WE THE PEOPLE represent ourselves in congress, we'll have to vote for truth in the media and budget for a good deal more public education, especially in the subjects of civics, banking, history, economics. It could be a real benefit all around.
Sorry, this did get a little long...
15. House of Representative reconstruction: I propose that the House of Representatives be disbanded and replaced with an online representative system where each and every citizen has a vote via the web by the proper use of the Real ID card to identify and verify each vote of every citizen. Each citizen can vote, or give and remove their proxy vote to any regional virtual representative that expresses that citizen’s ideals and desires. Anyone who wishes to serve as a Representative to the Virtual House can form an icon/picture that represents them, state their ideals and platform in their description, and publicly account for their voting record in a permanent platform. Bull sessions where each Representative has time to speak to the greater audience concerning current legislation. Those Representatives with the most regional proxy votes will be allowed higher in line to speaking rights to address legislation and introductions. Those Representatives, who attain a certain level of regional percentage of proxy votes, will be paid as a Representative of the Federal Congress. Only those Representatives who have the required level of proxy votes can view, vote and introduce legislation that may be deemed sensitive. This system of representation is a more dynamic and changing system of governance. This system would be a true system of democracy, something our founding fathers never could have envisioned.
• Democracy is not stated anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or in the constitution. Democracy is the rule of mob or the rule of majority where fifty-one percent has the right. Democracy was never intended to take an active part in government, it is simply used to dupe the people into thinking they have a say and a voice. The only instance of democracy in our system of governance is that of our vote where the majority rule has a say, in theory. Our government is a republic ruled by laws, where no one is above them and where the law via the constitution is what limits our government and grants freedoms to its citizens. Once our leaders start to ignore the laws and constitutional limits then the republic dies and becomes an oligarchy, the rule of the few powerful.
• Option two: A secondary public opinion data base that group’s interest by congressional regions where the public can express their opinions concerning legislation (present, future, or proposal) for general public and congressional response. Every congressional vote, video public statement, written statements by congress, agreements and arguments concerning every bill placed, must be recorded and assessable via website to the public. This data base of government information must be maintained for all following years. For instance, a citizen access the government website, scans their real ID to validate citizenship, and access all information and discussion of all bills and legislation from past, present and future decisions. Comments by all interested parties to be recorded and assessable. Spamming rules will be strictly enforced and fined. Decorum must be followed, meaning no adult language or expressions. Exceptions to this rule may be allowed.
• During the weeks prior of Obama taking office he created a website called change.gov where citizens could submit questions to the new administration. Questions were submitted by citizens who in turn allowed others to comment and add to the discussion. Each question had a rating system where citizens could vote up in agreement or down in disagreement to the ideas. The top ten ideas with the most votes where to be submitted to Obama and answered in a public showing of executive caring. The legalization of marijuana was in the top ten change suggestions, but was ignored as politically distasteful to the new administration. This website demonstrated what could be done when the information age meets government. Citizens should have more direct say in our government via public opinion polls and direct discussion and answers of the issues. Those in power generally do not want to share power; this may be the limiting factor in creating a website like change.gov in the future. Our politicians’ do not want public discourse on legislation, they do not want people empowered with knowledge, for this would limit their ability to comply with lobbyists whose agendas may be very different than the wants of their constituents. Politicians love the free hand they are currently enjoying with neutered forth estate not reporting any of their actions. Change.gov was never meant to be active during the live administration. Such a shame.
You do this you will be looking at the same problem as the state of (CALF) but at a national level. You might want to rethink this.
I say it's worth a try. Gotta be better than what we've got.
No, No, No.
The passions of the people are too easily aroused and too simply swayed by the
influence of the moment.
As much as I hate the constant attack on the constitution, allowing for what you suggest is tantamount to
"American Idol" type, phone-in voting.
We are a tulmultuous people, prone to rash decision making.
Our form of government allows for a slow process which enables cooler heads to prevail.
That's not to say that our government isn't controlled by NWO wacko's!