Last edited by Kandahar; 09-05-10 at 05:00 AM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
However, at the federal level, I'd prefer a reform that institutes the Wyoming Rule. The Wyoming Rule would give the state with the least population (currently Wyoming) 1 seat in the House of Representatives. The number of seats the other states get in the House would be based around this. This way, a more representative democratic process is instituted in the House.
I'd also prefer Instant Run-off Voting for elections so third-parties can get elected.
If this "deliberative democracy" gets instituted, however, I don't want any restrictions on who gets chosen. What's great about the democratic process is the openess of who is allowed to take part in decisions. If you place restrictions on that, then you automatically favor one group or special interest over another. I think that's wrong in a democratic society.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
However- people *do* do that. I've read quite afew different proposals and plans from others over 2010, 2011 budgets and so on - what they money should and shouldn't be spent on, where hikes and cuts should be made. People dedicate - volunteer - their time to these things and sometimes these things make their way to DC through someone and find their way - in whole or part - into various actions taken by Congress, etc.
Having any-ole body coming up with ideas isn't very comforting to me. . . neither is our current system.
We're still *very much* out of the loop on those decisions.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Secondly, a difference in Deliberative Democracy is that it tries to achieve consensus. You will probably find that quite hard for some issues, some issues that require some tough policies to improve the conditions.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Universal absentee voting
Motor voter registration.
Opposing any and all efforts to demand verification of citizenship of prospective registered voters.
Opposing any and all efforts to demand the presentation of lawful ID at the polls.
Opposition to basic literacy requirements.
ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Democrats can do to corrupt elections, they've been doing.
Yes, I'm FULLY aware of the problems with the American electoral process.
What group? Under the scenario I presented, the office holders are chosen from the candidate pool randomly, for a fixed term. Then they get to go back to their civillian life and live under the laws they passed.What do you do if people get power-hungry, can you force the group out of power if that happens and who does the forcing?
Naturally, there will still be a written constitution with specifcally enumerated powers and a specifc bill of rights. I mean, the US Constitution, when followed, provides the most secure guarantees of individual liberty in human history.
If you're referring to the nonsense we have today, it's becoming increasingly clear that the brick and stone walls in Washington could be put to better use with firing squads in front of them.
You mean like when Patrick Leahy deliberately stonewalled Bush judicial appointees simply because Bush was a Republican and might nominate judges that believe the Constitution is a limit on goverment?What do you do if you get one egocentric jackass that holds procedures up because he's enjoying the power?
The word is "term limits" and an end to arrogance.
What's to stop Obama from hitting the links?Humans have a natural tendency to "clique", what's to stop cliques among these random people from impairing their judgement?
What's to stop government office holders from developing an us vs them attitude?
Amazing thing about the word random. It keeps people from selecting.How do you ensure you dont accidentally end up selecting a group of all one particular political persuasion, which in America isnt terribly unlikely?
I have no idea what kind of weird power structure you're pretending to see.What do you do if groups start counter-manding each other or trying to undo the work that one group just did because they disagree with it?
And, frankly, I WANT the Republican to not only demolish the edifice of socialism built in this nation by the evil Progressives, but I demand they bury the corpse of socialism in the world's deepest salt bed.
So, you're saying there's something wrong with undoing the efforts of preceding office holders?
I say we have to fix the mistakes of the past and replace the socialists with Americans.
The method I proposed violates significant portions of the US Constitution and will not be implented, ever, anywhere.I'm not opposed to it, but I am somewhat skeptical. Again, I would want to see the idea piloted in a major city or even a state before I would start gelling into being for or against it.
Saying I thought it up 15 years ago is a simple statement of fact.
I'm retarded enough to see any value in twitter and there's no way I could have imagined anything as useless as that.
When I was in high school, in 1978, I postulated that since the TV repairman told me that the CRT was the weakest point of a TV, that we could possibly use LCD's to make TV's. That's as far as it goes, since I'm a mechanic, not an electrician.
Lots and lots of people come up with ideas and they lack the skills and capital to do anything with them.
It means nothing.
You should focus on the issue, not your personal creative failings.