-36 votes

Abolish congress and replace with internet voting?

What does everyone think of this idea? The rest of the constitution, separation of powers, etc. would remain intact. Just get rid of congress and instead have everyone either vote directly, or for those who don't want to vote directly, they can allow a representative to vote for them.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Done!!

And now to pay for that loaf of bread.

That'll be $250,000 dollars please!

How does one get your attention?

I've posted comments explaining how to do this.

I've posted a new post on it.
http://www.dailypaul.com/252505/support-the-rules-change-and...

I've explained it to a dozen people.

I've even argued with those who deny it.

Still, I can't get any serious discussion on how very easy it would be. The post above shows how simple it would be to fix the voting system but that can be expanded to include the creation of actual laws as well. Very easily. Unfortunately, the general population is too distracted in cheering for their side to look at anything new. (That includes most on THIS SITE!) People seem to naturally just jump on anything that appears different from the path they've committed to.

The trick is to implement the debate at the same time. Create a forum type situation where every comment needs to be backed up with facts which can then be challenged by others. This gives each opinion a level of credibility that can then be measured against a standard before moving on. On this type of system, the merit of an idea becomes paramount, not the popular opinion.

Is this democracy? Hell no. It's rule of law with representatives voting on those rules. The only difference is that those reps are no longer voted in by a corrupt system but are only those with enough interest to get involved. Should there be but a single voice to counter an act of corruption, that voice can disrupt an entire bill that's headed in the wrong direction.

Compare this to corporate shills ACTIVELY making laws against us and for themselves which is what we have now. Sorry... there's NO COMPARISON.

Why not just use the Internet to hold Congressional Meetings?

I think the Internet is great. But electronic voting is not very safe.

I think we should probably use the Internet to hold meetings. Congress could be just one big SKYPE meeting. Why are we flying these guys off to live in expensive DC when they are supposed to be representing the concerns of their state? I think these guys get too used to swishing around with the big boy players in DC and they change, especially when there are no term limits.

Skype is great. They could live at home with their family and attend all meetings from their home office. Make their hours and their schedule more like that of a normal person living in their state. You know, the normal person, if this was implemented, could easily come and visit their Congressman with their concerns.

Just a thought.

Where do you get those assumptions?

Who says internet voting isn't safe? (I don't know of anyone hurt in the process) The point is that if you let the ruling class design the system, OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO BE CORRUPT. If we designed it, it could be completely open and transparent to everyone, start to finish.

I like the idea of at least starting out by holding meetings online. It wouldn't even have to be Congress sanctioned ones. We could simply hold an open town hall debate style meeting on each issue and then debate the topic based on a set of verifiable facts and less-weighted opinions. Once a consensus was reached, the now-popular solution could be presented to Congress for enactment.

Our state delegates even wrote our new party platform via a large email list and while a bit cumbersome, it worked much better (no schedules or lost discussion) than doing it in person. Unfortunately, it went down in flames at the state committee meeting with nary a word.

The problem is not too little democracy...

...it's too much! If you want to make a pro-liberty change in our form of government, how about eliminating the direct election of senators, and returning that power to the States?

If you want a recent case study on the problems with democracy, look no further than the recent Republican primaries: look at Ron Paul's percentage of the vote in primary States versus caucus States.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of people always have been and always will be politically ignorant. A republican system limits the influence of these "casual voters," (know nothing, only care a little, vote out of some sense of civic duty) and gives more influence to those (like us) who are most knowledgeable and passionate. I'd go so far as to recommend poll taxes, or some kind of competence test, which would weed out a lot the causal voters who don't care enough to put in that effort.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

EXCEPT in Rhode Island were we did not listen to ONE WORD

EXCEPT in Rhode Island (a primary state) were we did not listen to ONE WORD uttered by the official campaign. And we got 25% of the delegates. We were fighting FOX NEWS and the Republican Party and we got a quarter of our state's delegates in Tampa representing Ron Paul.
(Wish we were a bigger state. But still.)

BMWJIM's picture

HELL NO!

Take over congress. NO one here wants democracy. We want our Republic to function properly even if we have to eliminate ALL the power brokers to get there! They are going to get a SCREWING even if they don't want it!

Jim

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

It wouldn't be a pure

It wouldn't be a pure democracy. It would be the same republic that we have, just without the corrupt politicians as the middle man.

I don't want a pure democracy

Mob rule doesn't work, regardless of what scheme is used to count votes.

I'd rather see a restriction on the right to vote. We would probably all be better off if we prevented government employees and those receiving direct government assistance from voting, and limited the right to vote of the remaining population to those who pay taxes.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Yep I agree 100%. If you get

Yep I agree 100%. If you get your income from Gov't you should not be allowed to vote. Complete conflict of interest. No one should be able to vote themselves more stolen money from, or more power over, the people that actually have to work for their living.

I'm an IT specialist

and I think this is an awful idea. The internet is by and large one of the most easily manipulated tools on earth at this point.

Why do you think people are so opposed to electronic voting booths?

If you were to have a nationwide vote online it would without a doubt have the most skewed results in the entirety of history. The one who controls the site controls the results.

Bit boxed in by your thinking, aren't you?

So you're saying that because you can't see one, that no solution exists which can tabulate someones vote, encode it with a one-way hash, send it and then let them double-check it on a publicly displayed list of codes?

NOTE for other readers: A one way hash is a code is a way of mixing up some data so that you can never take the end result and figure out the beginning data, but if you start with the same beginning data, you'll always get the same output code.

See my link below where I show a) how to do this, b) how easy it would be to pass and implement, c) how it could even be done privately or in any staged amount before leading up to more authority.

If the powers that control the sites

Dislike honesty, which is a highly likely, because money talks - then any amount of security they have can be considered as null and void.

Do you understand that? Even if that weren't the case, we have seen in the past that any computer system that is considered highly secure is still susceptible to vulnerabilities. The CIA, FBI, etc. have all been hacked into before. Computers are not secure, period. A physical count is the only way to have a chance at a fair count.

You misunderstand completely

First off, WE have to be in control because if we're not, it doesn't matter if we use paper or if they take a satellite pic of hands held up outdoors, it won't be fair. However, a ubiquitous computer system, available on any web site or home PC/phone could easily ensure that each person could verify THEIR vote was publicly recorded accurately. That kind of makes the whole security issue moot, don't ya think?

Barring that obstacle, if done correctly BY US, then the security of the computer would not be in question. Any and in fact, ALL, computers would be able to do it because the process is fully open and transparent. How would they corrupt YOUR computer to change the vote if you can verify your vote on every other computer? No amount of hacking could change all the computers and programs in the world and once a vote goes public (the code, not the personally identifying info), thousands of public service type people could watch for and document each change.

I think this would be a great selling point for an election

But not in the manner you speak. Nothing so large should start so large - it should start small. Give it time to mature.

Imagine a candidate goes up against and incumbent. That candidate has the means(either personally or through donation) to implement a system like the one you speak of JUST for their constituents. Basically they tell the people they will vote exactly how they are told to vote by their district. I have often thought this would be a great way for someone to supplant one of those entrenched reps(of which we have no shortage of here in CT). SELL the people that their voice matters again.
I think a lot more people would get involved if there was "an app for that" - presenting clear concise information in a snap shot form. Easy vote capability and a menu option of priority changes(for bills that seem to have 20 non related items all attached).

As for fraud - it is harder to hide things electronically than it is in paper form - after all - once the paper is collected it is locked where you never see it and there is no record of changes. Electronically there is always a record somewhere for someone to find. Not saying it wouldn't take some real thought - but I would feel more comfortable with electronic voting than paper IF it was setup correctly.

Anybody up for putting a project together?

You won't find any support on this site because

people are too entrenched in believing it's a problem that's out of their hands. They'd rather go about their day complaining that it's broken beyond repair so they don't want to hear how easy some things could be to fix.

If YOU are interested, however, take a look at what I posted back in August.
http://www.dailypaul.com/252505/support-the-rules-change-and...

This can be done publicly, privately, or locally through nationally. Any scale you want to start it on works the same.

I think starting small is a

I think starting small is a great idea, and probably the only practical way to implement something like this.

We no longer have a representative form of government

Congress doesn't even have time to read the bills that it passes. They are all just puppets of the real power, the Corporatocracy. Will the Coproratocracy allow the Little People to start ruling the country with legitimate elections, or with internet voting?

No.

Why would they? That would threaten their hegemony.

When was the last time...

When was the last time that a President or Congressman was elected by a majority of eligible voters. I've gone back to Reagan. He had 32% of the eligible vote.

It may be as far back as 1888. If even then.

A minority Rule democracy is anathema.

Free includes debt-free!

OMG -I had a scary idea that one day

instead of the electoral college being by states - each corporation will vote for ALL employees on its payroll.

Garan's picture

This discussion helps expose associated problems in government.

Even though I don't think it would be good to do this without making changes, it is a good thing to contemplate. Because of that, I think this topic doesn't deserve a bunch of down votes.

Most of what comes to mind are other problems that would have to be solved to make a populous vote work.

  • Better education for better decisions. Our schools don't teach people to think critically and independently. We need to teach rhetoric to protect people from rhetoric.
  • Much less law and simple law. We all can't be experts at existing legislation.
  • Real choice. The two party system is dumb. We need multiple candidates and multiple votes; voting for all the people we like
  • Voting for one bill at a time is dumb. Legislators/voters often think they have to vote for a shoddy bill or no bill at all. Alternative bills and multiple votes could make bills compete.

That's all I have time to contemplate for now.

Good points. This would

Good points. This would definitely not be something that happened overnight.

For those individuals who take no interest in politics, or don't feel well enough informed, there could be a way to delegate your vote to a representative of your choosing. This would also help to dissolve the party system into something more natural and with more variety.

I'm not real comfy

with the idea of uninformed people delegating their vote to someone else. That's too subject to people selling their services (for the good of a community) and collecting lots of power.

What would be wrong with posting 'the issue' or the candidates platform and track record in varying reading levels for each voter to read? If someone wanted the 2 minute version, they could read it boiled down to a 5th grade level (as interpreted by each side and labeled as such) or if they wanted more detail, they could go to longer versions. Ultimately, they could read the actual bill being proposed. Personally, I think it's criminal that bills are getting passed before we get to read them, let alone CONGRESS!

Good list and I agree

BUT - I think by putting this into people minds - the average person would understand these bills are NEVER as simple as the MSM portrays them. I mean -they dumbed Obama care down to - "everyone gets insured" - they left out all the juicy details. If the role out of an online voting system was a major marketing event - people would jump on board - they would then realize how screwed up it all is and maybe(again - maybe) they would start demanding these bills be what they should be - simple, easy to understand pieces of prose that any idiot can understand. We don't need to smarten the populace as much as we need to dumb down the laws(although I am all for a smarter populace).

I also think the party system would dissolve as elected reps would only have to answer to the database - not the party.

Correct. It's good list.

Most laws could/should be eliminated as unconstitutional.

Free includes debt-free!

Great Idea.

I was ran for congress on this issue last s election cycle. If all legislation was voted on by the people of the individual districts lobbying would stop. which it has to.
Of course we need faith in the American people .... I have that.
I could write about this topic but it would be better if you checked some of my videos on this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/user/rickbeckwitt

I think it is a great Idea and something Dr Paul along with Peter Theil could put together quickly.

I'm ready.

Lobbying will stop when it stops being effective.

Crony capitalism pays big, but it is Treason.

Free includes debt-free!

When

the people's character is bad, like ours, they can't self govern. The answer isn't in the various forms of political structure, or the voting process, it's in improving our characters.

Your thinking is basically lazy

You cannot make a blanket statement that everyone's character is bad, especially just based on their actions. You must first assess their motive.

What's the top motive behind all the so-called bad behavior you speak of? I would argue that it's survival.

I'm not referring to staying alive and above ground. I'm talking about surviving in a system where our standing on the social ladder has been conveniently tied to monetary wealth (and a few other elitist perks). For example, just look at how everyone has the insatiable need to gain a rung (regardless of how you define that) and even more how they can't accept losing a rung. It's to the point that "It's just business" is nearly able to justify any action.

That's not bad character. It's playing the game as it's presented to you. Have a little trust in each individual to tackle the issues where they personally see the most problems. In doing so, the people's agenda will supercede over the corporations (banks).

It might be technically workable.

Something akin to BitCoins server system and cryptographic protocols would have to be used.

All demonstrably open source and transparent.

One man - one vote. That still leaves a "free press' that has, for the last 125 years left us in the dark and left us blind.

One man - one vote is meaningless. When the light go down and the movies starts. Then go and vote based on the show.

That's why Dr. Paul suggested we get out and see what is really going on.

I met an old GOP hand who describe his experience 20 years ago. "Nothing has changed".

Free includes debt-free!