-18 votes

Direct representation by letting the people directly vote electronically on all legislation.

With the current state-of-the-art purchasing and banking technology now in place, (along with voting fraud laws), American should start demanding direct voting on all legislation by the people. After all being governed by the consent of the people is the central tenant of the consitution.

The elected officials may not like it, but it's not they country. Instead, they could be facilitators that make sure their constituents are educated on the issues and ready to cast an informed vote.

Surely, the time has come for a bold new initiative to pull us out of this mess. A great center piece for a presidential campaign.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Denise B's picture

Besides the fact that this

would result in a pure state of democracy, which our founding fathers were extremely opposed to because it ultimately results in mob rule, it would never work for another completely unaddressed issue and that is the problem of voter fraud. Congress currently has about a 10% approval rate, yet incumbent continue to get voted right back into office. If that doesn't prove vote manipulation (primarily because of electronic voting), I don't know what you would need. The voting system is compromised. There will be no solution found through electronic voting until this problem is fixed...period.

One anarchist (me) kinda likes the idea.

This could actually work really well -- if large super-majorities and empowered minorities were part of the law. Any new law approved by 90% of the voters passes. Anything less than 90% fails. And any law can be repealed by 10% of the voters. Looks like a great formula for shrinking the state, to me.

One remaining huge problem is the Executive Branch. It's all very well for the people to make the laws, but the guys who enforce those laws -- or don't -- still have too much power to "interpret" or ignore such legislation. And the old political hacks in the judiciary deciding what is "constitutional," gah! Fugetaboudit.

Anyway, it's all a fantasy. Those now in power will not be passing any such law anytime in the next . . . ever. It would take a revolution to get rid of them, not an election.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

ok, but

Only those who pay taxes get to vote....

And . . .

only those who vote for a measure are required to pay the taxes to fund it.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Cyril's picture

Btw, could it be an instance of the XY problem?

Btw, I'm not 100% sure, but it might very well be that the general debate around finding out, say, the (presumably) "best system of people representation" is in fact an instance of the XY problem :

where 'User' would be the people, X would be "achieving liberty, justice, and prosperity", and Y would be "the (presumably) 'best system of people representation'" :


* User wants to do X.

* User doesn't know how to do X, but thinks they can fumble their way to a solution if they can just manage to do Y.

* User doesn't know how to do Y either.

* User asks for help with Y.

* Others try to help user with Y, but are confused because Y seems like a strange problem to want to solve.

* After much interaction and wasted time, it finally becomes clear that the user really wants help with X, and that Y wasn't even a suitable solution for X.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture



"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Lets just get back to the default lines

of the original documents and reduce this bloated fat pig we call the Federal Government.


the original document support this fat butted pig

by way of article 4. the federal government has the power to decide any controversy it is involved with. How could any limitation be placed upon it, when it can unilaterally decide its own power?

I don't think its such a bad idea IF...

1) Constitutional provisions were written to codify criminal law.
2) Constitutional provisions limited the scope of any new law.
3) It took a super majority of registered voters to pass the new law...not just those who decided to vote that day.

In this way, the day to day life of the average individual would remain unchanged. Very few new laws would pass, the new laws would be limited in scope.

"Democracy must be more than

"Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

That, my friend, is why we have a Representative Republic.

Blah, Blah, Blah....

Even though I actually up-voted you given the nature of a "Democracy" assumed to be a majority rules...better left for an Organizational Theory and Design discussion in college. However, I think that this is EXACTLY what needs to happen with Caveat's attached...like a super-majority needed rather than some 51% level...especially if the law affects, in any way, personal freedom or property rights.

As I've gotten older...I have actually found some level of appreciation for some "ordinances" that protect the people within sight...of eyesores, or affectation of property value based on the decisions or proclivities of another but...whose to say what affects me in a negative way aesthetically is, or is not "damaging"?

Who? Courts.

It should take a super-majority to turn the wheel even slightly off of the Constitutional Highway insofar at laws are concerned (ike required insurance when operating a vehicle) but a court of peers to decide what is an eyesore and what is not or whether or not a contract has been breached...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

The people get what ever form of government they demand!

However, you know we are in trouble when the Daily Pauly goes Orwellian where right is wrong and everything is upside down.

This is an idiotic 'solution'

If you want total destruction of everything around you then have hundreds of millions of idiotic fools decide the rules for 'government'.

Almost no-one understands how real law actually works properly, including almost all lawyers, so why would have these ignorant fools decide the rules for 'government'?

How many people even here on DP are clear on the fact that legislative acts have NO application to the People and lawful government abiding by law does not even have the lawful authority to write or apply law to the People? Most people will think I am nuts but if you understand the law, what a contractually established entity actually is and you understand true EQUALITY means under law then you will understand WHY the Constitution is the law for those within the government capacity and WHY legislative ac ts are strictly applicable to the government capacity.

Can Walmart's (or company X) Board of Directors make company policy that applies to shareholders? NO!!! That is because of the hierarchy of law actually intrinsically functions within real logic. Can Walmart's board of directors make applicable rules for the man on the street NO!!!. These contractually created entities cannot apply rules to anything except to those operating under it's capacity.

This same concept applies to the Constitutional entity when America's organic laws and common law is fully understood and upheld to it's exact non-conflicting application. Almost no one in America knows this, even the highest scholars in the liberty movement fail to understand this, which means having these people decide legislation will be certain death and tyranny of the republic as was achievable with the proper awareness.

Knowing how the proper application of law actually works means that we already have all protections of law accessible to us but those protections can never be accessed if one is ignoring the law. This is exactly why ignorance of the law is not a defense. Real non-conflicting application of law means the only time the 'government' can even lawfully enter your life is either by your consent or by the consent of another who is identified as the liable accuser with allegations of actual injury. A court can never have subject matter jurisdiction in the matters of tyranny they are operating under now but the only reason this is happening is because the people are ignoring the REAL LAW. Real law has inviolate natural protections accessible but no-one knows and applies this so EVERYTHING is screwed up not because of corrupt politicians but because of intellectually lazy people who ignore the protections of law.

It is these ignorant, intellectually bankrupted individuals you suggest to vote on legislation, who clearly do not know the lawful bounds of applicability of legislation.

This is a completely insane idea and appears to be born of not understanding how law actually works. We have no issues of a lawless society if we simply uphold the law exact precisions but everybody chooses easy opinions instead of following the truth wherever the truth may lead. Legislation can never lawfully apply to the people and the statutes, when reviewed carefully do not even claim to.

How much better can a people have it than a government that has no power over the people because everyone is free and equal? If we don't uphold this truth then we are consenting to being slaves to criminals.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Governments rarely recognize real law

but, we've already had this conversation :)

If the people uphold it then the 'government' has no other

choice but to recognize it.

That's why its called real law. That's also why the People are the party that holds blame. Now that we know it's crime, not bringing justice means that we are committing misprision. We have every reason to uphold the law but the people simply won't do it.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

No legal mechanism for the people to safely stand against

government...except a jury trial. ??? but even that is a case by case defensive play.

That seems to be the problem. Men of conscience only have the daily paul to vent, and there is no legal significance to a good venting.

No legal outlet to press back.

The people cannot even change the constitution, only the legislature can.

your turn...

Legal mechanism is not necessary

The law of time is the final arbiter within nature. When the time runs out the legal mechanisms will alter to conform with real law or will evaporate into non-participation due the forum's failure to perform its lawful duties.

Divine law shapes nature and is the final arbiter of all. The law of time and Divine law stand supreme in its authority over the 'legal' realm.

The jury could be a destination for where the reform comes from and yes it is on a case by case basis, but if those cases are every single bureaucrat being brought to justice starting with the violent strongmen tyrants, then those individual's cases can be the falling of each blade of grass cut by the lawnmower of justice brought by those who were injured. Once the grass of crime and tyranny is mowed by the people and the juries, the remaining bureaucrats will see the writing on the wall and self-reform.

If access to the juries are denied then the law of time will inherently meet it's limits and dysfunction/uselessness will be revealed as a direct result of the system's lawlessness. When the time runs out they will either go for warfare or self reform. Divine law however will offer it's inspirations and inherently reveal the division amongst the crats who carry out such lawlessness. Once the great split begins to reveal itself then divine law will determine whether tyranny or liberty is worthy of passage into nature. If we access the divine inspiration through lawful action then liberty will win.

The legal realm is too far down on the hierarchy of law to have much of an impact on those who access higher laws for their protections. We have to go through the legal realms to get to the higher law but the legal realm is not the destination but merely a speed bump on the road to the destination to liberty.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

i do read all of your replies to me. and take the time to

consider your points. Mostly I think you are right, sometimes I think you are off base. But I always learn a little bit more from your stuff.

You know that I wish the legal system was aligned with the law...and that is my wish, because that would lead to maximum individual liberty.

who would write the legislation and what would the limits

of power be on the legislature?

The represenatives wtill right the legislation, but it would

be up to the people to study the bills and either pass them or vote them down. Every thing else remains the same, unless the people want to change things.

interesting thought

what would the limits on the power of legislation be, if any?

So let me see if I understand the logic behind the naysayers

to this idea of direct representation.

Are you saying you had rather have some corrupt politican (who you probably didn't even vote for), who has probably been influenced or bribed by special interest, to cast a vote that obligates you as a taxpayer, as opposed to you, the taxpayer having a direct vote on the matter your self.

Talking about the blind sheeple who have been brainwashed of all notions of self-determination. This is the most ludicious logic ever exposed on the DP!

Cyril's picture

One problem...

One problem is you're going to have a heck of a hard time trying to convince the masses that it's the tax payer who should have a voice.

Eventually, the masses will all want, and demand, to vote any time, anyhow, as usual, and the demagogues rhetoric will continue to prevail, only in a more modern way.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I beg to differ. The whole country is very unhappy

with the government. By taking the power out of the hands of the politicians and giving it back to the people, (where it belongs) would solve so many problems and would be immensly popular.

As a transition period, a congressman could have their district's voting central in their office and ask the voters to weight in on an issue before they vote.

You have to understand, voters should not feel helpless and fear the politicans, the politicans should fear the voters!

Cyril's picture

I can understand you, I hope.

I can understand you, I hope.

You have to understand your turn: it's not the idea of empowering people I have a problem with.

I am ALL for empowering people. But my look at History suggests me that it's better done (for justice's sake) when they do it by and for themselves, in liberty, and they don't have to rely on the force of law to pursue such endeavors.

The law ought to be justice and ONLY justice. Ideally, it - the law - should actually be seldomly ever needed to resolve disputes, beyond upholding contracts. My belief is the vast, vast majority of disputes can actually be handled by contracts, to be protected by only a very small core of simple laws, which themselves are drawn from an even simpler and even more fundamental document: the Bill of Rights.

Law should NOT be a helper tool for use by X, Y, Z to enforce their whims on others. That's the disastrous bias (or misunderstanding, if you wish, disingenuous or not) of Legal Plunder.

I appeal to a return to a Negative - hence, PARCIMONIOUS - Conception of the Law :


Be it by corrupt politicians or by agenda-motivated masses, the MISUNDERSTANDING or DISDAIN for what is the sound nature of the law - (that is, justice and ONLY justice, and certainly NOT management or special interests protection) - is the root of evil we ought to strike at, instead of focusing on the branches.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Wouldn't it be the same outcome if state income was charity?

The state having no power to borrow from one group to give to another needs no electoral process.

If government was a consumer good for universal welfare it wouldn't need to tax under threat of force.

Free includes debt-free!

taxation is an extension of the governments power to

initiate harm with legal impunity.

This is the root of its dysfunctional power.

Article. I. Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Two-hundred and Twenty years and less that 6 months debt free (1835).

No debt has been paid since 1893, only increased.

Truth is, Government can't handle the debt.

Free includes debt-free!

I'm sorry, can you explain how your reply relates to my reply

I'm missing something.

Constitutional authority given to accept debt and tax.

"initiate harm with legal impunity" is a Constitutional granted authority.

That's how it looks to me.

Free includes debt-free!