There would be a definite selection bias, though, so the results couldn't be counted on to be accurate. As long as the results weren't binding, it would be nice.
Change "Let’s require U.S. Representatives to poll their constituents regarding bills scheduled for a vote and publish the results" to "Let’s require U.S. Representatives to INFORM AND ENABLE THEIR CONSTITUENTS TO VOTE regarding bills scheduled for a vote and publish the results," then I'd say yes, as long as the polls were word-neutral, especially since they won't be binding. It's important to keep in mind that the public actually changes its mind a lot more than one realizes.
Instead of the first 1% of their taxes, it should be the first $100 or something, because %1 can be a hell of a lot of money in some cases. Also, it should be opt-in.
100k is not microfinance by any means. And "fast, quick and easy" sounds like you're throwing money at the problem, and we all know how well that works. True microfinance ($50+ loans, etc.) would be a good idea, though.
Aww, but I like the idea that I could possibly live and vote in two states during presidential elections. :) But I agree that at least some felons should still be able to vote, especially the non-violent ones. I second saphyn.
I can agree with the first, but not the second. Also, it's important to remember that most people in a "bad" corporation aren't necessarily bad, or even greedy. Only the people at the very top really made the decisions.
I agree with jbristor. There is no such thing as "too large to fail." The market will always be able to correct itself, if given enough time. And we already break up monopolies so this seems rather redundant.
For this to be remotely possible, the government would not pay for Ivy schools like Harvard, because cost does not necessarily equal quality, and it would be a waste of money. But it there were an upper limit or ceiling to how much could be spent by the government, then this could work. Also, it's important to know that people DON'T value things they get for free, so there should a minimum amount that a student should pay, or it will fail, as California's did. But this would be determined on an individual basis.
Technically, the legislature CANNOT give the current legislature (themselves) raises, only the next legislature. I believe this is even in the ammendments to the Constitution. But the idea is otherwise sound, because they do give themselves less visible benefits.
But there should be a length display limit to the ideas. If people want to see the rest of a really LONG idea, they should be able to open it in a new tab, instead.
Yes, I agree with Josh. But this should also be done with AC and government buildings, where the buildings are too cold, even in the middle of summer. (Although, to be fair they probably don't do this nearly as much as movie theaters and other private businesses.)
This would cost way too much money to pay for the experts. The idea is good, but it sounds like something that would be better suited for a non-profit to do for complicated bills.
In theory this is a good idea, but in practice, we should replace, not eliminate, the electoral college, so that small states can still have a say, and to prevent third party candidates from messing up election results.
If the government could come up with a GOOD definition of what an earmark is, then this might work. I know that some definitions are already available, which they could use a starting points.
This would cost WAAY too much money. Also, Google is trying to obtain copyright for many of the things it has scanned--not good. FYI there is a (free, online) TED talk about doing this with a nonprofit group, in which it was likened to the library of Alexandria, but I don't remember the name of the talk.
There are sites for this already, but since your idea is (presumably)in addition to, not in replacement of, those sites, so that individuals wouldn't have to opt-in to be heard, this idea could really work.
It's potentially problematic, esecially the part about incentive systems. Often, less noticed incentives such as social/ moral incentives are steamrolled by economic ones. If you paid people $3 to donate blood, their primary reason (because it's the right thing to do would be replaced by the money, which wouldn't be enough for people to want to donate, so donations plummet. This principle is in Freakonomics.
"Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions."
WTF!?! I like the idea of an end to imperial presidents and governments, but that's just INSANE. ALL military service should be voluntary.
Yes good idea, but how is your idea different form Leggitta3's Create a Federal Onestop Database of Fed/State/Local Gov't Officials with room for feedback idea?
The main problem with data and the web is not so much that information isn't available, it's that it is hard to find and often incredibly confusing. That's why organization, searchability and graphical representation (see Hans Rosling's gapminder.org) and customization (letting each user able create his/her own personally color-coded and prioritized version upon log-in) are imperative.
Good, but don't make it just the budget. Everything from government-funded data, to product recalls, etc. should be available in a friendly, easily searchable way. See the free, online TED talks of Hans Rosling's Gapminder and Tim Berners-Lee's Linked Data for ideas.
There is already a site for this, Open Secrets, as patriotact has pointed out. It's best to have a third-party, not the government do this, anyway. But making sure that to such websites are readily available would be an admirable objective.