...one which had everyone in the country who could vote cast a vote, and the issue would be dicided by the majority vote - would you participate? This would mean voting everyday or every week on every and all issues that your government had to deal with. Would you participate?
2006-12-03 17:23:05 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Is the government going to be paying everyone for voting like we do for them right now? It wouldn't make sense. There would be too many issues brought up EVERY day. You would be working outside of work just trying to stay caught up with the votes. And if one issue didn't get passed they would tweak the bill and send it through again. Plus, using the Internet, there would be hackers getting into their system to add more votes to something they approve that the majority of people may not approve. Is that something you would want to have to go through?
2006-12-03 20:15:45 · answer #1 · answered by Roller Coaster Enthusiast 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You mean if your country was a true democracy as opposed to a republic, I would vote but then again I majored in political science in college so that makes since. However, most people don't understand the amount of work that goes into being a state legislature or congressmen; its a full time job and it would be impossible for anybody with a job and family to vote on every issue. So, I would say its a good thing that we elect Representatives to do it for us.
2006-12-03 17:31:39 · answer #2 · answered by Katherine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would participate perforce, but such a system is unworkable. Called pure democracy, there is nothing in it to protect the rights of minorities from abuse by the majority. Furthermore, the average citizen cannot become an expert on each and every subject that comes before government; how much of th 65,000 pages of the tax code do you know and understand? Clearly, representation is absolutely essential.
2006-12-03 17:51:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why? That would mean the government no longer makes decisions for us as they are supposed to do. It means no more government representing the people, it means the people representing the people. Although I strongly believe popular votes need to be heard, there is just no point for the people to vote on absolutely EVERYTHING that happens.
2006-12-03 17:27:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We already have chaos and confusion. It's a nice thought as the politicios are a pretty accurate copy of those who elect them. It's completely unworkable. A good experiment might be a a completely sequestered congress during each and every one of their terms. Lobbyist should be shot on sight. P.S. Legalize thought!!!!!!
2006-12-03 21:34:25 · answer #5 · answered by ancientcityentertainment 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd be interested in what percentage you are thinking of for a "majority vote".....
I think it is a wonderful idea, but I agree with some of the others.... most people are apathetic and don't want to think anymore. That is why they elect someone else...... to think for them. It is a full-time job with awesome power at their fingertips.
.........and that is part of the problem as well....
2006-12-03 18:46:47 · answer #6 · answered by wolf560 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a good environment for mob rule. I prefer my Bill of Rights based on law, not based on transitory whims of the masses.
2006-12-03 17:33:15 · answer #7 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean no more judicial review by courts? That'd make me very happy. Yes, I'd start voting again if there were no more judicial review at all ever again.
2006-12-03 17:33:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, it could be done easily by SMS vote (Free of charge), internet which isfree, or you could stop at a local council. simple, hold referendums on each major issue, such as immigration and iraq war.
2006-12-03 17:27:53 · answer #9 · answered by bushfire0000 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-12-03 17:31:00 · answer #10 · answered by Hi 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋