Why do we need politicians and officials to represent the people? Sure it made sense when our forfathers wrote the constitution, but now we have the telephone, internet, and other communication devices that can connect us to anyone? Could civilians just vote on the issues over the internet, then we dont need a politician to make the decision, it is all done over the computer!!! This would be just like a city hall voting, and is the ideal situation for a democracy.
2007-06-14 03:11:06 · 10 answers · asked by learydisciple 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I don't think the Constitution is outdated. It's just in need of a major overhaul. We live in a vastly different world than the forefathers' day. The past doesn't own us. We need to begin thinking more modernly and throw off the restrictive notions of dinosaurs like Antonin Scalia and others of his ilk who would hold us hostage to outmoded ideas. The founding fathers had their day. Now we have ours, and we must start living according to the modern social architecture, not that of men dead some two hundred years.
As far as using the Internet to vote on issues is concerned, that would favor the more affluent members of society, who can afford computers and Internet access. Believe it or not, a significant portion of the U.S. population have neither. So their segment of the population would be vastly underrepresented in such a scheme. So that is an idea whose day has not yet arrived.
2007-06-14 03:28:24 · answer #1 · answered by MathBioMajor 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The constitution is not outdated. There are too many issues for the public to have votes on every one of them. That is part of the reason that we have represantative democracy. This way the people we elect represent our interests (hopefully) and we can go about our daily lives. Your "ideal" situation may sound good at first because everyone would have a voice on each issue, but is very impractical in today's society.
2007-06-14 04:02:31 · answer #2 · answered by quest_adam 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would bet that people who question the Constitution haven't even bothered to read it. The Constitution is the most important piece of America, and if we actually followed it we wouldn't be in the sorry shape we are now. Our founding fathers would be rolling over in there grave if they saw the sorry state we are in.
Our "leaders" Like us dumb and in debt so we dont notice the steady sale of america to the highest bidder. I do agree that Politicians are pandering scum, (EXCEPT FOR RON PAUL) and dont represent the peeople any more. but that is our fault and we should vote them out. We ARE NOT supposed to be a DEMOCRACY. We ARE a REPUBLIC. A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it. as long as 51%of people don't smoke they will tax cigarettes. as long as 51% of people dont have to pay for a bond, it is passed, on and on. The Constitution set up a system of checks and balances that are designed to protect us from ourselves, and us from government among other things. I think you should read and think more on the subject before making uninformed statements.
2007-06-14 04:29:01 · answer #3 · answered by Charles L 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we had a system that elevated the best and brightest to positions of power we would get a really good government.
Much better than average, which is what you get when everybody votes on every issue.
But it does seem outdated, there needs to be protection added to limit executive power. The executive has taken the power of a Monarch to imprison without charges or due process. Of course this is in the constitution already, maybe it needs to be written with pictures.
I could write the illustrated constitution! It could be required reading at Yale and Rice.
2007-06-14 03:33:17 · answer #4 · answered by Ron H 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In a perfect world, this would work. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.
Using the Internet as a tool for election and voting process is something that is in the future, but until they can secure the voting process (prevent hackers), and guarantee complete anonymity, it is just a dream.
Instead of worrying about the reps and eliminating them, why not use the Internet and telephone to ensure they do what they were elected to do, which is represent the majority of the voters that elected them! E-mail them, call them and write them and instruct them of what your wishes are on bills up for votes. Believe it or not, they do listen, and they do get the message when a majority of their voters don't agree with how they are going to vote. One wrong vote that is unpopular could cost them their job in the future.
2007-06-14 03:29:53 · answer #5 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The structure isn't an previous record. in truth, there's a procedure written into it to guarantee that it by no ability will develop into so: the modification procedure. contained in the approach american heritage, the structure has been amended 27 situations. lots of those amendments have higher freedom and fairness. we've freedom of speech, faith, the click, non violent assembly, rights to trials, and the right to legally purchase alcohol. Rights have also been certain for females human beings, blacks, and persons over the age of 18. besides, your argument is a non-sequitur. the top does no longer keep on with from the inspiration. Slave-possessing is for sure a reprehensible act, yet possessing slaves does no longer prevent one from having the flexibility to position in writing a sensible legal record or got here upon a valid authorities. in truth, a number of heritage's maximum in a position governments were run by folk who owned slaves - basically look to the Roman Empire. no longer in ordinary words is your end invalid, yet your premises aren't from now on fullyyt precise. Black human beings were, and nevertheless are, human beings. And even as Indians were killed because the first days of eu colonialism, there replaced into no struggling with between human beings and Mexicans on the time of the structure. in truth there replaced into no valid conflict with Mexico until eventually 1846, fifty 9 years after the structure replaced into written. even as that's authentic that gay marriage replaced into no longer legal on the time, that's an fairly deceptive fact. Homosexuality replaced into below no circumstances reported throughout that factor period, and gay marriage replaced into no longer an situation in any respect. in truth, it by no ability became an situation until eventually some a lengthy time period in the past.
2016-11-23 20:38:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats a bad idea. Too much faults in technology and honestly many times in history the American people do not look at the long run effects of their decisions and we need progressive, and hopefully somewhat more educated individuals to help us to understand that. Hard truth, but nonetheless the truth
2007-06-14 07:18:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not really. The advantages of a republic is that on top of our busy lives we lead now, we'd also need to become experts on foreign policy, tax and spending policy. And if you think there is voter fraud now, ...
2007-06-14 03:18:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Constitution is not outdated. Your "ideal" situation would lead to a tyranny of the majority.
2007-06-14 03:14:35 · answer #9 · answered by Layne B 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Great. Government based on American Idol
2007-06-14 03:15:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋