0
16

[–] Sadistic_Bastard 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Because that would make sense and probably get things done, silly. Also, companies and organizations wouldn't be able to effectively lobby or bribe to get their way. You wouldn't want that would you? /s obviously

Edit: But seriously, that would be very time consuming. That's the only reason I can think of right now. If anyone can point out the other downsides don't hesitate to respond.

0
3

[–] konem 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Policies need to be debated, not just voted on. While a parliament can narrow down the most popular standpoint relatively fast, a whole country full of people may take a while to make a draft.
The time consumption can also be further elaborated: In a case of war reactions need to be fast and efficient, setting up an election and double checking the votes will cost lives.
Also, as time is money, every election costs the taxpayer a lot (about 1$/vote, can scale up extremely depending on the complexity of the ballot and anti-fraud measures taken). I think most people would gladly pay that for an election on TTIP and while politicians cost a lot of money too, they also vote on policies with almost no controversies. Without politicians there is no "filter" for these smaller policies, which will fill up your free time and mailbox pretty fast.

0
0

[–] DudeDude [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

All of these are technical implementation details if the system were an online one.

0
2

[–] zzupdown 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Being time-consuming is a good point. The people's legislative power could be exercised or limited solely to major bills, or limited to public line-item veto over any legislation when media reports brings abuses to light. Voting on legislation could also be extended to 30 days to give as many people as possible the time to vote.

It could be as simple as each voter receiving today's legislation summary by secure e-mail, with links to the full text or detailed explanations and debates by your representative, and clicking on your vote in your reply, with line-item vetos also marked, and hitting send.

0
9

[–] Dashippy 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

For what it's worth I do vote for the policies a leader has, rather than they themselves. It's why this election I swapped parties. It's sad when you ask someone which of their chosen leader's policies they support and they don't have an answer.

0
1

[–] DudeDude [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I live in Oz and hate some part of every policy set. Our main parties are very similar.

0
1

[–] zzupdown 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The problem is that the politicians you vote for don't unilaterally make the policies, and don't even know which specific policies of theirs got them elected. Then when they fail to get their policies passed, in the next election they're accused of failing to keep their campaign promises. I'd prefer our representatives craft the laws but let the public vote on them, with line-item veto power to reject pork-barrel projects or other back-door legislation. The supreme court can still decide legality, and the executive branch can still enforce the law. And, at least, the laws represent the will of the people.

I'd even prefer just randomly picking a representative, jury selection-style, advised and supported by a beaurocracy proposing the laws, over the system we have. The general public seems infinitely more reasonable than the extremist politicians which the system encourages.

0
0

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Everyone with a minimum of a high school education entered into a random draft to spend 2 years in the House of Representatives. Nobody can serve more than 1 term and your job is legally held during that time. Let's do it.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Echo_of_Savages 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

We don't have to force everyone to vote, only the people truly interested in the policies would vote while those who don't care can continue to not care.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] zzupdown 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Then we get the issues explained to them,like how they explain the law to a jury. The reason the public doesn't know now is because they don't need to know. That's also why the media is so shitty. That would change when it really matters that the public stay informed.

0
4

[–] tanzmeister 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Because the US is a representative republic, not a democracy.

0
2

[–] ninjai 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

An oligarchy, you mean.

0
2

[–] tanzmeister 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Not legally or officially.

0
0

[–] zzupdown 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The constitution is not written in stone; the people can still enact change in the current system if the cause is popular enough.

0
0

[–] DudeDude [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

or has enough money to lobby effectively.

0
3

[–] LemonRose 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Because in order to enact that change our politicians would have to approve it, thereby eliminating their own jobs. = never gonna happen.

0
0

[–] DudeDude [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

We don't HAVE to listen to them.

0
1

[–] Echo_of_Savages 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Because then the media would brainwash people into voting for their agenda. For example, Reddit would curate their political material to show one side as being better than the other, Facebook would do the same thing, and the sheep would all follow the shepards.

0
0

[–] ShampocalypseWOW 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That sounds like democracy, you communist!

0
0

[–] zzupdown 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I've thought this for years. With the internet, the technology is now available; we just need to use the security now available.

0
0

[–] Echo_of_Savages 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Bitcoin protocol. Use it for voting, it can change the way we do politics.