Can we govern ourselves using a consensus?

Answer 1

This is a very appropriate question for the age. The age of information and communication.
It applies to all States and Nations. 300 million people having a system whereby they can see the consensus on the web and submit to the opinion of the overwhelming majority. The caveat of course is the protection of life and limb against mob rule, like lynching mobs in the Wild West.
Here's a sample of how it could work.
Consensus is understood to mean 'the wish of the populace' acting as a reliable and accurate guide to government executing home and overseas policy.
On your annual tax form you could each year be given a series of boxes to tick where you personally choose how you want your annual tax to be spread across the various areas of the nation's activities. Marked down as percentages you could be quite precise about your own politics, given 1000 units to spend on 100 choices.
In this scenario, all data would be easily scanned or recorded on the net, and quickly shown as a graph.
The graph would show exactly, from year to year, the hearts and minds of the nation. If, for instance, the graph shows a clear majority for spending near zero on weapons and defence and a sharp increase in spending on health and social welfare, the nation's representatives would take it as an endorsement by their own public that they are willing to take their fate into their own hands and perhaps make a new chapter in civilised society. The opposite might also be the case.
In this sense the onus of failure is placed fairly and squarely on the tax voters and not on their governors. For, if the tax vote reduces the defence capability of the nation and an aggressive neighbour threatens home security, the people will accept the fact that they took the responsibility for their own actions in the tax vote and will therefore be inclined to negotiate with their neighbour on the basis of their transparent politics.
The government take on a more passive role and truly let the people decide their own future. When other nations see this transparency, they will eventually follow suit.
Now that's somewhat over simplistic but in principle it is about setting a social trend toward revolutionising the age of instant communication and moving quickly toward a more direct form of democracy.
The downside is that the public have to accept the rough with the smooth as consequences of their own choices.
The current system puts too much trust and power into the hands of vulnerable people whose integrity is compromised by the cosy relationship between politics and business.
I think it is essential at the present time for people's around the world to begin governing themselves and to dump the notion of submitting themsleves to a hierarchy of governance that acts in contempt of consensus.
I personally believe that people generally have more compassion and common sense than the power eilte and would therefore articulate a less warlike approach to foreign policy through their tax vote, even risking 'turning the other cheek'.
Yes, we can govern ourselves but the old regime has to be dismantled first

Answer 2

Yes you could. Many Washington Insiders long for what is called Publicite Referendum Government. It's sort of a Gov by Video Game. The whole Nation watches Gov TV and votes electronically.

I could care less as long as I;m making money. They could let PresChimp throw darts at a decision board for all I care. Just keep the money flowing.

Go big Red Go

Answer 3

How do you get a consensus with 300,000,000 opinions? That's why we have a representative form of government.

Answer 4

Consensus means that everyone is in agreement. I really don't think everyone in the US is in agreement about anything. So this would obviously not work.

Answer 5

No, but it seems like the Republican party would like to do this, and conquer the world!

Really, how does the minority get any rights? Or, maybe we should turn in to robots and conquer the world!

No, we really need laws to protect minorities.