3 ms·

Everyone is talking about calling Congress or signing a petition, this is pointless. Congress is completely broke. We don't need Congress. Why can't we vote o

by socrates1998 13y ago

Everyone is talking about calling Congress or signing a petition, this is pointless. Congress is completely broke. We don't need Congress. Why can't we vote on budgets ourselves? We have the internet. We can devise a way to vote online a few times a year, once a quarter. You login, you look at the proposals, you vote on what you think is good for the country. Congress is the middleman that is poisoning our system. The three branches of government should be: the people, the court, the executive. And we could do away with the excesses of the President's power. No more NSA. No more pointless wars. No more TSA. Gone. Well, if that's what people want. True democracy with the protections of the court and a true executive, not a power hungry executive branch.

justzisguyuknow 13y ago
> Congress is completely broke. I think you meant "broken" – they have plenty of money.
dllthomas 13y ago
Specialization. I don't have time to research these things as deeply as someone we're paying full time. Which isn't to say that this concern should dominate - clearly, there are issues which this would ameliorate; any proposal has costs and benefits. Just pointing out a (potentially significant) cost.
- socrates1998 13y ago
  I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about? The answer? They shouldn't. Congress is less than useless. They are harming us. They are not governing, they are parasites living off the work of others.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote, we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else could be made to work, or mightn't work better, but your sophistry is unbecoming.
    - socrates1998 13y ago
      >You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more? It's a joke. A subversion of proper governance and democratic principles. Because like you said >I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        "You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?" ... because they are also in charge of regulating workplace behavior and taxation and immigration policy and forestry and environmental protection and on and on... One individual cannot know more about everything than does a specialist in the field - that's why we have specialists! You're specializing in (I'm guessing) software and networking. They're specializing in legislating and management. If they're communicating well and properly doing their job, this is a better system than asking you to regulate the internet and treaties regarding overfishing off the Aleutians. "So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors." They are not themselves elected, but they are hired and managed by an elected official whose performance is - in large part - a proxy for the performance of the staffers. There is nothing inherently wrong with delegation and specialization - that's how we get shit done. Corruption - overt and otherwise - is certainly an issue. It is an issue whether it involves staffers or the politician directly, and it is probably a strong argument for a more democratized approach, but is unrelated to the question of domain knowledge.
andrewfong 13y ago
California allows direct democracy by referendum and ballot measure. The results have largely been terrible.

justzisguyuknow 13y ago

> Congress is completely broke. I think you meant "broken" – they have plenty of money.

dllthomas 13y ago

Specialization. I don't have time to research these things as deeply as someone we're paying full time. Which isn't to say that this concern should dominate - clearly, there are issues which this would ameliorate; any proposal has costs and benefits. Just pointing out a (potentially significant) cost.

socrates1998 13y ago
I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about? The answer? They shouldn't. Congress is less than useless. They are harming us. They are not governing, they are parasites living off the work of others.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote, we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else could be made to work, or mightn't work better, but your sophistry is unbecoming.
  - socrates1998 13y ago
    >You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more? It's a joke. A subversion of proper governance and democratic principles. Because like you said >I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?" ... because they are also in charge of regulating workplace behavior and taxation and immigration policy and forestry and environmental protection and on and on... One individual cannot know more about everything than does a specialist in the field - that's why we have specialists! You're specializing in (I'm guessing) software and networking. They're specializing in legislating and management. If they're communicating well and properly doing their job, this is a better system than asking you to regulate the internet and treaties regarding overfishing off the Aleutians. "So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors." They are not themselves elected, but they are hired and managed by an elected official whose performance is - in large part - a proxy for the performance of the staffers. There is nothing inherently wrong with delegation and specialization - that's how we get shit done. Corruption - overt and otherwise - is certainly an issue. It is an issue whether it involves staffers or the politician directly, and it is probably a strong argument for a more democratized approach, but is unrelated to the question of domain knowledge.

andrewfong 13y ago

California allows direct democracy by referendum and ballot measure. The results have largely been terrible.