• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ramifications of citizens voting on bills/ reforms?

What incentive would the party with the majority of votes behind them have to allow any other party to have a vote? Why wouldn't they just say "We've decided, it's turkey loaf for everyone because it's easy and healthier than bologna"?

Watch what happens in real world situations like this. The DNC was a great example as they thwarted a HUGE chunk of their base to run Hillary at all costs. Sure, they paid lip service to Bernie in public but blew him off behind his back. Those Bernie supporters then had no choice but to support Hillary and even now are being force fed AOC instead of Bernie.

A "party" in this situation would not all unanimously agree on things, as far as I can believe. Example: my wife 100% disagrees with her Mother on abortion although both say they are liberal. Political parties would possibly fragment, although I am not sure if this is good or bad. People would just vote on what they want.

The turkey reference..... all too familiar in healthcare. I see that issue as a literal problem quite often.
 
Why does everyone seem to forget Switzerland exists when discussing direct democracy? Their system is far from perfect and has it its own problems but it is a model of direct democracy and the Swiss electorate has made some incredibly stupid decisions but the discussion on direct democracy does not need to be purely theoretical.

It is not something that I have learned about. I didn't know that direct democracy is already in place, even remotely. I will look at it though. Generally speaking, how has it shaped their country?
 
It is not something that I have learned about. I didn't know that direct democracy is already in place, even remotely. I will look at it though. Generally speaking, how has it shaped their country?

It has shaped everything about Switzerland for centuries, it has done some good things like extending many rights or protecting the environment and some very bad things like not allowing women to vote till well after WW2, the anti-immigration referendum and the smaller cantons blocking even civil unions for same-sex couples.
 
Good question. So if it were opened up to all those in America, what would be the cutoff point for those who could NOT vote? I would pose that if you have never set foot in the United States then you would not be able to vote. But still where would the cutoff be?

As an American living in New Zealand... those allowed to vote are citizens and permanent residents ...
 
Aw, c'mon. Just because you don't live in the USA doesn't mean that you aren't effected by US policy. The whole world is impacted by what we do here so the whole world should have a say in what we do, right?

Of course they should. When we are deciding how much money to send to Bangladesh, the Bangleshadians certainly have a compelling interest.
 
I want to pose a question to y'all. What would the ramifications be if Congress (or the House) opened up the decision to the people of the United States, limited to citizens. In my proposition, however, the American public would be required to read the bill/proposition in its entirety and take a quiz/test covering the information before they would be allowed to make a vote. This is an accepted concept in medicine and science already. For example, OSHA (the occupational safety and health administration) requires employees to read through pages of information and take a test at the end, and the employee (or soon-to-be employee) has to pass with a certain standard before they can work. This practice applied to the population of American citizens would, I believe, ensure that the public is educated on the matter and it would also ensure the government figures would follow the true desires of the public.

However, I know there would be negative effects as well such as increased difficulty to vote on matter of importance for those less educated. it could be combated by the government authority and it would be in their best interest to keep the public educated so they they may be "smart" enough to absorb and process the information so they can still push their very important agendas.

So what do y'all think??

I think a more effective method for people to be more engaged in government would be to eliminate withholding.
 
I want to pose a question to y'all. What would the ramifications be if Congress (or the House) opened up the decision to the people of the United States, limited to citizens. In my proposition, however, the American public would be required to read the bill/proposition in its entirety and take a quiz/test covering the information before they would be allowed to make a vote. This is an accepted concept in medicine and science already. For example, OSHA (the occupational safety and health administration) requires employees to read through pages of information and take a test at the end, and the employee (or soon-to-be employee) has to pass with a certain standard before they can work. This practice applied to the population of American citizens would, I believe, ensure that the public is educated on the matter and it would also ensure the government figures would follow the true desires of the public.

However, I know there would be negative effects as well such as increased difficulty to vote on matter of importance for those less educated. it could be combated by the government authority and it would be in their best interest to keep the public educated so they they may be "smart" enough to absorb and process the information so they can still push their very important agendas.

So what do y'all think??

The American people are more oblivious to reality than their elected representatives in Congress.

Sure, there are a few well informed groups here and there, but they are mostly whistleblowers working against the status quo.

Most of Congress is devoted to maintaining the status quo of government by special interests. Your idea is a warm and fuzzy pipe dream.
 
What incentive would the party with the majority of votes behind them have to allow any other party to have a vote? Why wouldn't they just say "We've decided, it's turkey loaf for everyone because it's easy and healthier than bologna"?

Watch what happens in real world situations like this. The DNC was a great example as they thwarted a HUGE chunk of their base to run Hillary at all costs. Sure, they paid lip service to Bernie in public but blew him off behind his back. Those Bernie supporters then had no choice but to support Hillary and even now are being force fed AOC instead of Bernie.

They have a choice still they can vote against their party. Personally I don’t understand this tow the party line mentality. If I don’t agree with something. No matter what party puts it out I’m voting against it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No, a person could read 24/7 and not read it all. That is what our representatives for. In addition the tests would be incredibly political and suggestive by nature, as laws that declare their purpose may in fact have a very different purpose or effect.

No, no employee is required to read ALL OSHA regulations.
 
Back
Top Bottom