25 votes
I disagreeI would like to be able to vote on issues directly, rather than having elected representatives vote for us. With internet sites we could vote for which issues are worthwhile, then have a second vote that decides how the issue should be handled.
-16 votes
I disagreeThe idea of the open government dialog is great, but who are we having a dialog with? Using the “town meeting” analogy, there are no anonymous participants. When you say something in such a meeting you usually are known or state your name. Perhaps the same should apply here – the participating citizens should identify themselves. Part of a dialog is trust, how can I trust an anonymous voice? How many voices are really ...more »
The idea of the open government dialog is great, but who are we having a dialog with? Using the “town meeting” analogy, there are no anonymous participants. When you say something in such a meeting you usually are known or state your name. Perhaps the same should apply here – the participating citizens should identify themselves. Part of a dialog is trust, how can I trust an anonymous voice? How many voices are really citizens? Who is bias?
In the profile for a citizen they should also have the opportunity to identify their positions and any other group they belong to. Lobbyists and similar activists should identify themselves clearly.
This is probably just due to the speed with which the site was initiated – but it seems odd that you can see that someone voted for something but not how they voted. You can see comments, but not the subject of the comment. You also can’t see all the voters for an idea. You should also be able to change your mind.
There may be some circumstances where a person would have the right to place an anonymous idea or comment – but this would seem to be the exception.
Transparency should apply to citizens as well as the government. Even if it is not required I would suggest that people not hide their identities unless they need to.
« less full details »
-17 votes
I disagreeThere should be a government run website that citizens can log-in to with their Social Security Number and vote for bills and such. This website is doing nothing but stirring debates, not to say that is not important.
-9 votes
I disagreeApproval voting[1] is a system where a voter may vote for as many candidates as he or she wishes. As an example, suppose a voter likes a particular third party candidate, as well as a mainstream candidate. Should the voter "throw their vote away" on the candidate who isn't likely to win, or vote for the mainstream candidate? With approval voting, they could simply vote for both candidates. The candidate with the ...more »
Approval voting[1] is a system where a voter may vote for as many candidates as he or she wishes.
As an example, suppose a voter likes a particular third party candidate, as well as a mainstream candidate. Should the voter "throw their vote away" on the candidate who isn't likely to win, or vote for the mainstream candidate? With approval voting, they could simply vote for both candidates.
The candidate with the most votes wins, as usual.
States could allocate their electoral votes to the winner, similar to the way we do things now, or with a constitutional amendment or the agreement of enough states, we could do a direct popular vote using the approval voting system.
I prefer approval voting to IRV and Condorcet voting because it's much easier to explain how a winner is determined, but any of those would be a vast improvement over the current system. Ranged voting is another reasonable alternative.
[1] href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
« less full details »
24 votes
I disagreeThere should be an established framework for politicians to make *binding* pre-election promises. Perhaps some sort of federal filing form, similar to "registering" to be on a ballot. Along with their registration, they should be required to file a document of what things they truely promise to stick to, if elected. Then, if they are elected, and violate those promises.... They should be directly, and instantly, impeachable, ...more »
There should be an established framework for politicians to make *binding* pre-election promises. Perhaps some sort of federal filing form, similar to "registering" to be on a ballot. Along with their registration, they should be required to file a document of what things they truely promise to stick to, if elected.
Then, if they are elected, and violate those promises.... They should be directly, and instantly, impeachable, soley on the grounds of that document. Due to "breech of contract", if you will. Reguardless of whether the office is sheriff, mayor, governor, or president of the United States of America.
« less full details »
1 vote
I disagreeThe vote should be one of IRV. The voter lists his preferences in order. If his first choice gets the fewest votes, his second choice gets his vote. The process is repeated until a candidate gets a plurality.
This does complicate the counting of votes. However, it improves the public dialogue, and encourages political participation.
32 votes
I disagreeSenators should be elected by the states legislatures as originally ratified.
37 votes
I disagreeI've heard ideas of how to add additional parties to our system. Right now due to our laws people don't vote for folks outside of Dems or Repubs cause if they do the person they REALLY don't like will be elected. So, I heard a way where if the person you select doesn't get X % of the vote then you can vote for a backup candidate.
55 votes
I disagreeThe current electronic voting systems have been concluded as lacking appropriate security due to design and software code issues. Open source software systems have been demonstrated as an inexpensive security solution. The country should move toward open source / paper ballot voting systems that displace the current proprietary code syatems. Fee waivers for open source systems, EAC appointments to those understanding ...more »
The current electronic voting systems have been concluded as lacking appropriate security due to design and software code issues. Open source software systems have been demonstrated as an inexpensive security solution. The country should move toward open source / paper ballot voting systems that displace the current proprietary code syatems. Fee waivers for open source systems, EAC appointments to those understanding transparency issues, and a reshaping of the currently broken certification process are all crucial elements of a proper solution.
« less full details »
37 votes
I disagreeThe goal of having the most popular ideas bubble up to the surface for discussion in the next phase is a good one, but ideas that generate a huge amount of voting could sink to the bottom the way the votes are logged now. If half a million people like an idea and half a million don't then it will show up with zero votes on the balance. Personally I'd like to see the total number of votes displayed too so these ideas ...more »
The goal of having the most popular ideas bubble up to the surface for discussion in the next phase is a good one, but ideas that generate a huge amount of voting could sink to the bottom the way the votes are logged now. If half a million people like an idea and half a million don't then it will show up with zero votes on the balance. Personally I'd like to see the total number of votes displayed too so these ideas could get noticed. It might be worth having a discussion about them too.
« less full details »
26 votes
I disagreeI propose that we tally up what we should pay in taxes at the end of every year and that we should be able to elect to send the money to the public program(s) of our choice. If our concern is education, then we should send some to the school our kids go to. If the concern is poverty, send some to the soup kitchen or the the rehabilitation center or the job service agency that helps those folks. If our concern is potholes ...more »
I propose that we tally up what we should pay in taxes at the end of every year and that we should be able to elect to send the money to the public program(s) of our choice. If our concern is education, then we should send some to the school our kids go to. If the concern is poverty, send some to the soup kitchen or the the rehabilitation center or the job service agency that helps those folks. If our concern is potholes in the streets, send some to the transportation departments, then send the receipts with your tax form to the IRS. That's the only real way to have taxation with full representation.
We don't need the government to be the middleman and suck up all the money on earmarks and porkbarrel spending and fabulous permanent salaries and permanent health insurance for elected officials and oh yeah, WARS. I want to know where my tax money is going and I FOR SURE don't want to pay for any more stupid F*&%$&g wars, or for the US to be the world's 911 hotline, or for any imperialist endeavors. I want taxes to benefit the people of this country and be spent abroad for humanitarian purposes only. No more spending fortunes we don't have destroying other countries to protect corporate profits.
We really need to have taxation ONLY with representation. Our government has ignored the people's wishes for far too long and it has to stop.
ASK NOT what your country can do for you...
ask WHAT THE HELL DID THEY DID WITH OUR MONEY!!!
« less full details »
12 votes
I disagreeWhen I vote on an issue on opengov, I can't change it later if I change my mind. I propose that users should have the capability to remove or change their vote on an issue. In order to maintain accountability, their voting history on that issue should be accessible with the times of their changes.
-7 votes
I disagreeThe 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, ...more »
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.
« less full details »
19 votes
I disagreeBoth the Executive and Congress are in constant betrayal of the public trust because they represent less than 30% of the public. 70% of America did not vote for Obama, but to be fair to him, he is the same as Bush--irrelevant as long as we have a system owned by Wall Street. We must demand of Obama and Congress, the latter as the price for not being recalled or defeated in 2010, an Electoral Reform Act along the following ...more »
Both the Executive and Congress are in constant betrayal of the public trust because they represent less than 30% of the public. 70% of America did not vote for Obama, but to be fair to him, he is the same as Bush--irrelevant as long as we have a system owned by Wall Street.
We must demand of Obama and Congress, the latter as the price for not being recalled or defeated in 2010, an Electoral Reform Act along the following lines, drawing on Ralph Nader's lifetime of experience, as refined by Jim Turner and myself.
Phase I to be mandated for 2010 Election
Holiday Voting. Proposed, that to avoid undue hardship to the hardest workers in America, the working poor, national and state elections shall only be held over a week-end or on a holiday. If held on a Saturday, Orthodox Jews should have the option of voting in person on Sunday or by ballot in person the week prior, to be opened and counted on Election Day.
Honest Open Debates. Proposed, that to end the current monopoly of the debates by the bifurcated two-party alliance against independent and third parties, that the League of Women Voters be restored to their role as the managers of honest open debates, to include third, fourth, and fifth parties.
Expanded Debates. Proposed, that to end the charade of one individual being up to the task of managing America, that the debates be expanded to include a minimum of three Cabinet officials to be announced in advance, and generally to include the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State. Should the League of Women Voters desire, the Transpartisan Policy Institute would undertake the scheduling of substantive policy debates engaging all announced candidates for specific Cabinet positions, and shall provide, on the basis of open source intelligence from the Earth Intelligence Network, and budgetary costs and implications from the Public Budget Office, a range of viable policy options for debate and deliberation.
Instant Run-Off. Proposed, that to ensure the election of a winner elected by a majority, that the instant run-off concept be adopted for all national and state elections.
Phase II to be mandated for 2012 Election, with Districts Redrawn by November 2009
Full and Balanced Representation. Proposed, that to ascertain a properly representative balance in the House of Representatives for each state, and Open Registration be provided and that all parties having at least 10% of the voters registering a preference for their political philosophy, shall be eligible for assigned districts proportional to their number, and also to a proportional share of leadership positions in legislative bodies at all levels including the Congress of the United States of America.
Tightly-Drawn Districts. Proposed, that we end the corrupt practice of gerrymandering, replacing it with compact computer drawn districts similar to the kind used in Iowa.
Full Public Funding of Diverse Candidates. Proposed, to eliminate all federal financing of campaign, and all political action committees and structured bundled contributions to any candidate, that we institute a Campaign Contribution Tax Credit up to $100 per candidate up to ten candidates per individual in each election cycle to encourage broad based individual political campaign contributions.
No Legislation Without Consultation. Proposed, to eliminate special interest dominance of the legislative process, and to end the practice of passing legislation such as the Patriot Act without its actually being read, and to end all secret earmarks, that We all major legislation be published on line in Wiki format, with an easy to understand one-page summary, one week prior to its coming to a vote. This also includes a demand that all earmarks be listed no less than one week in advance of their being considered for a vote, and that all earmarks be publicly announced and offered for amendment to the voters in the relevant district at least one week prior to the passage of national legislation affecting them.
« less full details »
-19 votes
I disagreeA "No" vote against a candidate would offset a vote for the candidate. The candidate with the most net votes would win.
-22 votes
I disagreeGiven different expertise levels and passions to engage in certain topics, some people are simply far more expert than others. If one were able to vote on anything, or alternatively assign one's votes on particular subject areas to someone else they trust to vote wisely, then one could have confidence that their vote is most aligned with their intent. Proxied votes could be re-proxied to others as desired, potentially ...more »
Given different expertise levels and passions to engage in certain topics, some people are simply far more expert than others. If one were able to vote on anything, or alternatively assign one's votes on particular subject areas to someone else they trust to vote wisely, then one could have confidence that their vote is most aligned with their intent. Proxied votes could be re-proxied to others as desired, potentially creating a strong voting blocks of like-minded individuals.
« less full details »
-18 votes
I disagreeAs a citizen, you are required to vote, by law.
If they can figure out how to do it there, we can figure it out here.
Why can't we vote on bank machines, especially if we've bailed these banks out.
Let's make them useful for us!
63 votes
I disagreeA major impediment to transparent government is the widespread use of insecure electronic voting machines. These machines have been shown to be easily hackable, thus opening the door wide to voter fraud. Ultimately, an election might be rigged entirely, with no way to do a "recount" to correctly determine the will of the electorate. A transparent government would mandate that all electronic voting machine hardware ...more »
A major impediment to transparent government is the widespread use of insecure electronic voting machines. These machines have been shown to be easily hackable, thus opening the door wide to voter fraud. Ultimately, an election might be rigged entirely, with no way to do a "recount" to correctly determine the will of the electorate.
A transparent government would mandate that all electronic voting machine hardware and software, from the machine in the polling booth to the collection systems used to collate results, would be subject to publication and verification as true open source software. Every citizen has the right to ensure that their vote is properly and fairly counted. Having the entire process open to the public eye is the only proven way of not only ensuring fair elections, but also allowing a process whereby each voter can assure themselves that the process is verifiably fair and impartial.
Sean Ahern
Computer Scientist
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
« less full details »
3 votes
I disagreeThe systems that are supposed to make our democracy the best in the world are failing us. That is why the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed about 10 years ago, supposedly to fix certain problems. We now know that it was an utter boondoggle which pushed the country towards electronic voting, an outrageous "failure of the imagination." We need to take pride in the working of our democracy again and to do that ...more »
The systems that are supposed to make our democracy the best in the world are failing us. That is why the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed about 10 years ago, supposedly to fix certain problems. We now know that it was an utter boondoggle which pushed the country towards electronic voting, an outrageous "failure of the imagination."
We need to take pride in the working of our democracy again and to do that we, the citizenry as a whole, need to understand the multiple systems which are required to making the concept of democracy work.
One of the primary systems is news and opinion, without which we can't have an informed public. But the nuts and bolts of democracy are systems that protect ballot integrity, that allow ballot access, that allow 3rd parties to participate in presidential debates, that provide campaign funding transparency and some form of public campaign financing, that allow early voting, voting by mail, same day registration, instant runoff voting etc., all the way to issues such as the re-enfranchisement of felons who have done their time and are trying ro reassimilate into society, and making Voter Tuesday a national holiday. Even the right to vote isn't Constitutionally guarranteed, as we discovered in the Supreme Court decision which put Bush in office after the Florida debacle in 2000.
Our democracy is our proudest heritage as Americans but it is not working well. Let's have a national discussion about it so we can pull together the brainpower to fix it up.
« less full details »
Copyright © 2013 IdeaScaleFeedback Software
| Widget | IdeaScale Privacy Policy
Powered by IdeaScale
Social Web