
The week the web changed Washington - DanielRibeiro
http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/01/the-week-the-web-changed-washi.html
======
nextparadigms
If there's any way we can bring some _direct democracy_ influences into our
representative democracy, it's exactly this. Allowing say 100,000 to 1,000,000
people, who are outraged enough, to be able to at least postpone a bad bill
when Congress tries to pass it quickly. If these people oppose a bill it
should immediately be put through a process of public debate for a period of
at least 6 months, and it should all be done openly and fairly.

I don't know what the exact balance should be, but I would start low, rather
than high. The number of people necessary should be low enough that 80% of the
"bad bills" don't pass anymore, but also high enough that you don't have 80%
of these oppositions as abuses of the law.

The reason I would start with a lower number first, is because we've already
tried the "more representative" version of the Government, and it hasn't been
working that well lately, and because it's much easier to get them to raise
the number later if it gets too abused, than it is to get them to lower the
number, because that would mean giving even more power to the people, and it's
not something they'd like to do.

I'm not entirely sure how this opposition should happen - through signatures,
I guess? But they should give a lot of information about themselves to verify
them easily, or it needs to be done in such a way that a politician can't
easily manufacture these to stop an opponent's bill.

Maybe this is a good suggestion, maybe it isn't. But I do believe that in the
future we'll need more direct democracy influences on the Republic, for it to
stay healthy. The Republic needs to be a lot more bottom-up than it currently
is. Voting every 2 or 4 years to change a candidate, from the very few
options, when in 98% (fact) of the cases those with the most campaign money
win anyway, and then allowing them to do whatever they want when they get
there, is just not enough anymore, and it's clear it hasn't been working well.
This is why so many people are frustrated with the voting process and don't
vote. They know it's _mostly_ useless. The Republic needs to be upgraded for
the 21st century.

~~~
henrikschroder
> Allowing say 100,000 to 1,000,000 people, who are outraged enough, to be
> able to at least postpone a bad bill when Congress tries to pass it quickly.

That sounds nice when you only think about "good" people opposing "bad" bills,
but you can say goodbye to any kind of social reform under that system.

Repealing DADT, Repealing the Defense of Marriage act, same-sex marriage are
some social reforms that would never happen under such a system because you
can easily find millions of americans that are _extremely_ outraged about
those issues.

The protests against SOPA and PIPA worked because the absolute majority of the
american population didn't care and didn't have an opinion either way, but the
tech community had an expert opinion against it based on facts and technical
knowledge.

But if you open up your suggested system to issues where everyone has an
opinion and noone really knows the effects, the results are going to be
abysmal.

I wonder what the US would look like with a proportional representation system
instead. Where you would have an actual Tea-party party with as many seats in
congress as they actually have nationwide support for. And where the other
"factions" of the Democrats and the Republicans formed parties in their own
right, and people could have a more active role in shaping the policies of the
"block" of their choosing, instead of just voting for it because they don't
want the other side to win.

I wonder what it would look like if every vote counted, if there were no
swing-states, no gerrymandering, if the electoral college votes where also
proportional, so that voting for a third candidate is meaningful, or a fourth,
or a fifth. I wonder what would happen if the election results showed the
"purple" America that actually exists, instead of the red vs. blue illusion.

~~~
nextparadigms
I definitely think this kind of law should be debated and balanced, and I know
what you mean. Originally, I was thinking of giving these people the power to
"veto" the bills. But then I quickly realized what you are saying. Heck, even
the majority of population shouldn't have that kind of power too often (except
national referendums) because that would mean "real direct democracy" and that
system is definitely worse than the republic system.

I'm just saying we need some light direct democracy influences in the
republic, to have more checks and balances against the representatives.

Maybe 6 months is too much. Maybe 100,000 is too low. I'm sure we could find a
balance. And I'm only asking to postpone the bill and have set-up some kind of
open debate process - like multiple hearings with the public or civil
liberties organizations involved - anything like that, as long as they don't
rush it through Congress.

~~~
henrikschroder
> I'm just saying we need some light direct democracy influences in the
> republic

Yes, that is what proportional representation and a plurality of political
parties achieve. In the last elections here, I first selected one of the major
blocks of parties, and then a specific party within that block. That way my
vote gets a little bit more power, I get to say something about the general
political foundation, and I get to say something about specific issues that
are important to me.

If the party I generally vote for does something I'm completely against, I
don't have to abandon the fundamentals, I can still keep my vote within the
bigger block, but shift it to another party, which means the entire block
shifts direction ever so slightly.

This way, outside voter forces act on the blocks to change them and shape
them, instead of that process being completely internal and driven by their
perception of popular opinion.

> And I'm only asking to postpone the bill and have set-up some kind of open
> debate process

The biggest problem with this is that politics is all about compromise. It's
about giving and receiving, about making deals. It allows parties to get their
way in issues they and their voters care deeply about, in exchange for not
getting their way in less important issues.

But if you add an open debate process, you lose the bigger picture. Different
parts of the public, different organizations will get involved in different
issues, and completely ignore others, and each organization will act as if
their issue is the only important one, and not be willing to budge an inch.
For every issue you can always find enough people that cares very deeply about
it, but it's much harder to see the bigger picture, how _many_ people actually
care deeply about a certain issue? And I think that only by giving them the
power to vote can you really find out.

------
jerrya

        "They let us go. It was the only reason for the 
         ease of our escape."
            -- Princess Leia
    
        "The Empire Strikes Back"
            --  George Lucas
    
        "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
            --  Thomas Jefferson

