Do we still need them?

[Satt]

Here is a thought. Do we still need to be represented by a "congress". I know this sounds crazy. (Please correct me if I am wrong) But I was just thinking...originally, wasn't the idea of being represented by an official needed because not everyone could run to Washington and vote. They needed someone to go and represent their beliefs.

On the other hand, today, with computers and internet technology, couldn't we all just represent ourselves? What if the legislation came up, was made public, people given a reasonable amount of time to digest it, and then have a nationwide vote. This could be done state-wide and nationally. This might be a crazy thought, but I don't mind being educated if I am nuts.

 

[CoryKS]

We don't need them, but I think we do need a real, working congress. One in which the members read and understand the bills they pass would be lovely.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Apart from the fact that not everybody has the resources (no net) or the intelligence to use a computer, and that there are lots of privacy concerns, you are forgetting an important factor: people as a group are stupid and emotional.

Elected officials act as a buffer, and presumably know what they are doing. Even unpopular measures can be beneficial in the long term to the electorate who only care about here and now.

But even if we forget about all that, there is still the matter of being informed enough to make a decision. How many people do you know who would be willing to spend the time to read through hundreds or thousands of pages of legalese? How would you know what it all meant unless you were a lawyer?

 

[blackxpress]

If America was a Democracy then what you are proposing might be a grand idea. However, America is not a Democracy. America is a Representative Republic. The framers of the Constitution set it up that way to protect us from what John Stuart Mill referred to as "The Tyranny of the Majority" (see excerpt below).

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. — On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.

 

[zDom]

If America was a Democracy then what you are proposing might be a grand idea. However, America is not a Democracy. America is a Representative Republic. The framers of the Constitution set it up that way to protect us from what John Stuart Mill referred to as "The Tyranny of the Majority" (see excerpt below).

Amen! So it is, so let it remain.

 

[Satt]

If America was a Democracy then what you are proposing might be a grand idea. However, America is not a Democracy. America is a Representative Republic. The framers of the Constitution set it up that way to protect us from what John Stuart Mill referred to as "The Tyranny of the Majority" (see excerpt below).

Very nice article. Thanks! I am not a history buff, but the older I get, the more I wish I was. So I guess what we need isn't as much a Democracy, but a better run Republic.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Very nice article. Thanks! I am not a history buff, but the older I get, the more I wish I was. So I guess what we need isn't as much a Democracy, but a better run Republic.

With no disrespect intended, that's part of the problem - people not only don't understand (or care about) history, they don't understand (or care about) the system of government we live under. When I was a lad, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, we had mandatory classes in 'Civics', which explained our system of governance and why things are the way they are.

Now we get people complaining about the Electoral College, like they never heard of it before, or complaining about the 'tyranny of the majority' when the results of a plebiscite don't go their way. My suggestion to those worthies has always been if they can't trouble themselves to learn how our government works, perhaps shutting their pie-holes would be in order.

 

[Bruno@MT]

It's not that I think the electoral college is a bad idea, it's just that I think it is not right if the full college goes to the percentual winner.
A democratic vote in Texas is just plain worthless. Same with a republican vote in California.

It's just a nasty way of giving the finger to whomever happens to have a significant minority. It's also the reason that most elections hinge on just a couple of 'battlefield' states. Because noone fights over e.g. Texas. There might be a token effort, but that's all it is.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Very nice article. Thanks! I am not a history buff, but the older I get, the more I wish I was. So I guess what we need isn't as much a Democracy, but a better run Republic.

Now yer catching on.

We don't need continued incumbency. These "fat cats" need to be shown the doggy door and put out in the yard. They have forgotten what their role is and have become corrupted by money and power. You want "change"? Then make sure you do NOT vote for any incumbant in any office, be it local or national, come 2010. If people would band together against the elite and send a message as strong as that...we might have a chance at keeping our Republic.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Here is a thought. Do we still need to be represented by a "congress". I know this sounds crazy. (Please correct me if I am wrong) But I was just thinking...originally, wasn't the idea of being represented by an official needed because not everyone could run to Washington and vote. They needed someone to go and represent their beliefs.

On the other hand, today, with computers and internet technology, couldn't we all just represent ourselves? What if the legislation came up, was made public, people given a reasonable amount of time to digest it, and then have a nationwide vote. This could be done state-wide and nationally. This might be a crazy thought, but I don't mind being educated if I am nuts.

The Existing US Constitution Guarentees a Democaratic Rebublic. This means that you vote democratically for your representatives.

If you want to change it you need to look at US Constitution and changing it.

So if Congress both Senate and House members need aids and full time staff to read and brief them on the bills how do we expect the average person to even understand what is being discussed?


Also look at California where they can vote in Tax freezes and new benefits and all are required by law but there are no sources for income if the income taxes decrease in a bad year. This is a very bad situation. When things are good they spend like no tomorrow and wasteful items and when things are bad they borrow and beg for the items they need to get guy, even though they are required by law to continue the Fluff programs.

A persons is smart, but people are dumb. This has been quoted by those in movies and in politcs and other sources as well, so I do not know the original source. But my point is that you get more people together and you get more arguement on where to even begin. But if you get a few people off in a sub committee they put it together and then the committte can review and make changes and the present to the whole congress, I just do not understand who is going to do this work that is not seen if it is just the "PEOPLE" voting on issues directly.

How decides what is to be voted upon?

How often do we vote?

Can we vote to change the number of times to vote?

Can we vote to change the validity of a previous vote?



The original design had the people voting for Representatives based upon population per state. Each state Legislation then decided who the Senators would be. (* Yes this was a power put in place to guarentee state rights *) It is my understanding that the State legislation also had the power to pull a sitting Senator if that person went rogue. Then we voted in the complex way for President and Vice President. This was changed so that one voted for both and they were of the same party to avoid someone within the party of the VP looking to make a change.


Personally I would like to see the States go back to choosing their Santors in the Federal government, as this would add more balance back to the states versus the federal.

I do agree that the federal should have the military and other federal common nationwide items such as SS and health care and such.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Amerca government is NOT perfect....So far it is ONE of the best being use today...

Always room for improvements....for our form of government...

Computers systems...cannot be trusted....to easy to alter...virus..etc...

A one person ruler without checks and balances...can be good if we get a perfect ruler.....

There is NO such thing as a perfect ruler...therefore...a congress is needed

Aloha, would you like us to be your ruler?

 

[Phoenix44]

I'm still baffled by the electoral college.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I'm still baffled by the electoral college.

The concept is that you can't trust the Average Joe to make rational, educated decisions for themselves so there is a "buffer" in place to make sure we don't allow some crack-pot to take over the country.

Each state has a certain number of electoral votes. It is based on representation. Every state has 2, representing the number of senators each state has. The remaining number is based on the amount of representatives which reflects that states population.

So say your state has 13 electorl votes, that's 2 for the number of senators you have plus 11 for the number of representatives.

Now, if there's a population shift then the number of representatives a state gets also changes and therefore changes that states electoral votes and power.

That's a major reason why states attempt to bring in industry and jobs because it gives them more power and influence on a national level.

It's a crazy game...

 

[Bruno@MT]

The concept is that you can't trust the Average Joe to make rational, educated decisions for themselves so there is a "buffer" in place to make sure we don't allow some crack-pot to take over the country.

That's not really true anymore.
It is exceedingly rare for an electoral college member to cross over, and it has never changed an election outcome.

These days, you choose the electoral college not because of who they are, but because of whom they will vote in office. 99% or more of the general public has no clue about the members of the electoral college, and whether they are 'wise' or 'lunatic'.

Furthermore, many states actually have laws that put significant punishments on electoral college traitors, to make sure that the electoral college elects the presidential candidate selected in the election of that state. So the 'buffer' argument is rather unrealistic, and harkens back to the days when horse and carriage was the fastest speed of information, and most people would not have seen or heard the presidential candidate.