Norseman
30th July 2008, 16:36
The major problem I see with the current system is that, firstly, the majority of the population does not control the country, and secondly, that the control of the mass media is not held by the majority. I think if those two problems were fixed, we would move to communism within 10-20 years. So, as I see it, the solution to the problem is to create a democracy party. This party would require that for any politician to receive campaign funding and votes, they must sign a contract provided by the democracy party, and append that contract to their oath of office.
Basically, the politician would agree that, on any issue in their job where they can make a decision, if a 66% majority of at least 10% of the population votes one way, or the other, on that decision, then the politician is required to do what the majority wants. If they don't, they break the contract. Thus, they violate their oath of office, and they're susceptible to a class action lawsuit. Politicians are not required to agree to this, and certainly many won't. The democracy party merely guarantees that it will only vote for politicians who do sign this contract. That includes presidents, governors, mayors, judges, congressmen, sherrifs and so forth. As long as the democracy party has a swing vote, it may have enough influence to force Democratic or Republican candidates to sign with it.
I think this is a viable strategy because it can draw Democrats, Republicans, and people who otherwise wouldn't vote into the same party. Nearly everyone can agree that it's best that politicians consent to and facilitate democracy, especially in a so-called democracy. The consequence is that the representative democracy of the US could be, more or less, turned into a direct democracy, where any and all decisions can be made and overruled by the voters. If voters want to pass a law against telecom companies spying on them, or to end the Iraq war, and prevent the president from vetoing it, and prevent the supreme court from ruling it unconstitutional, they could do so. If voters wanted to amend the constitution to get rid of the representatives entirely, and switch to a pure direct democracy, they could do it.
The problem is that such a party would almost certainly be marginalized by the mass media. CNN, FOX, and NBC are certainly going to ignore this kind of party for as long as they can. That will keep voters from joining the democracy party, and keep its influence minimal. So, a democracy party needs to rely upon alternative media. Blogs, and democratic news sites like digg and reddit provide a good place to get the word out. Still, that might not reach a large enough portion of the population to take national control. In order to get, say, 20% of the population to join the democracy party, the party would need to advertise itself as aggressively as the Republican and Democratic parties. As long as politicians don't sign the Democratic party's contract, campaign funding can be directed towards expanding the party. My guess is that the best way would be to concisely explain the concept of the democracy party, the importance of democratic media and deliver pamphlets about it to the places where the voting rate is the lowest, and especially to the places where voters feel the most disenfranchised.
So, my question is, what do people here think of this idea? Do you think it would work? Would you want this to suceed? Would you support it? What would you change?
Basically, the politician would agree that, on any issue in their job where they can make a decision, if a 66% majority of at least 10% of the population votes one way, or the other, on that decision, then the politician is required to do what the majority wants. If they don't, they break the contract. Thus, they violate their oath of office, and they're susceptible to a class action lawsuit. Politicians are not required to agree to this, and certainly many won't. The democracy party merely guarantees that it will only vote for politicians who do sign this contract. That includes presidents, governors, mayors, judges, congressmen, sherrifs and so forth. As long as the democracy party has a swing vote, it may have enough influence to force Democratic or Republican candidates to sign with it.
I think this is a viable strategy because it can draw Democrats, Republicans, and people who otherwise wouldn't vote into the same party. Nearly everyone can agree that it's best that politicians consent to and facilitate democracy, especially in a so-called democracy. The consequence is that the representative democracy of the US could be, more or less, turned into a direct democracy, where any and all decisions can be made and overruled by the voters. If voters want to pass a law against telecom companies spying on them, or to end the Iraq war, and prevent the president from vetoing it, and prevent the supreme court from ruling it unconstitutional, they could do so. If voters wanted to amend the constitution to get rid of the representatives entirely, and switch to a pure direct democracy, they could do it.
The problem is that such a party would almost certainly be marginalized by the mass media. CNN, FOX, and NBC are certainly going to ignore this kind of party for as long as they can. That will keep voters from joining the democracy party, and keep its influence minimal. So, a democracy party needs to rely upon alternative media. Blogs, and democratic news sites like digg and reddit provide a good place to get the word out. Still, that might not reach a large enough portion of the population to take national control. In order to get, say, 20% of the population to join the democracy party, the party would need to advertise itself as aggressively as the Republican and Democratic parties. As long as politicians don't sign the Democratic party's contract, campaign funding can be directed towards expanding the party. My guess is that the best way would be to concisely explain the concept of the democracy party, the importance of democratic media and deliver pamphlets about it to the places where the voting rate is the lowest, and especially to the places where voters feel the most disenfranchised.
So, my question is, what do people here think of this idea? Do you think it would work? Would you want this to suceed? Would you support it? What would you change?