4 ms·

This is the debate that needs to take place. How do we restore trust? Checks and balances are meant to prevent abuse of power, but they have been removed from t

by qbasic 11y ago

This is the debate that needs to take place. How do we restore trust? Checks and balances are meant to prevent abuse of power, but they have been removed from the equation. Oversight by the judicial branch has been perverted with "top-secret" courts and the ability of the legislative branch to correct the abuse has been scuttled by the lack of transparency.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
I generally advocate for a citizen's veto amendment, where any citizen can initiate a petition to veto legislation that will trigger a second and binding referendum if there are enough preliminary signatures. It's one thing to vote for the right people, it's something else to expect representatives to do what you want when everyone in Washington is brought there by the money and power of someone else.
- woodman 11y ago
  If the State's power is derived from the consent of the governed, then a lack of political participation on the part of the governed should be considered a vote of no confidence. This would solve the problem of imbalanced lobbying incentive, government overreach following tragedy, etc. Most importantly it would solve the moral problem that Thomas Jefferson pointed out: "The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another..." As it stands now, we have a garbage collected memory allocator with no reclamation function.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I generally advocate for a citizen's veto amendment, where any citizen can initiate a petition to veto legislation that will trigger a second and binding referendum if there are enough preliminary signatures. Many US states have this kind of referendum provision (notably, given the disproportionate Silicon Valley representation on HN, California.) I don't detect substantially greater trust for government in the states with it then is the case elsewhere or with the federal government, and it is, itself, a frequent influence point for special interest money.

by qbasic 11y ago

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

I generally advocate for a citizen's veto amendment, where any citizen can initiate a petition to veto legislation that will trigger a second and binding referendum if there are enough preliminary signatures. It's one thing to vote for the right people, it's something else to expect representatives to do what you want when everyone in Washington is brought there by the money and power of someone else.

woodman 11y ago
If the State's power is derived from the consent of the governed, then a lack of political participation on the part of the governed should be considered a vote of no confidence. This would solve the problem of imbalanced lobbying incentive, government overreach following tragedy, etc. Most importantly it would solve the moral problem that Thomas Jefferson pointed out: "The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another..." As it stands now, we have a garbage collected memory allocator with no reclamation function.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I generally advocate for a citizen's veto amendment, where any citizen can initiate a petition to veto legislation that will trigger a second and binding referendum if there are enough preliminary signatures. Many US states have this kind of referendum provision (notably, given the disproportionate Silicon Valley representation on HN, California.) I don't detect substantially greater trust for government in the states with it then is the case elsewhere or with the federal government, and it is, itself, a frequent influence point for special interest money.