Welcome to Outside The Beltway
Welcome Guest Login or Signup
INSTANT MESSENGER | BOOKMARK
| LANGUAGE:

BLOGS   WRITE NEW BLOG   EDIT BLOGS  
 
RSS
National Referendum
Posted On 03/10/2010 18:47:34 by aTexan2

Can the President or Congress call for a national vote on referendums to be enacted by Congress. If "The People" could vote on issues directly, at the normal polling places, & have their vote binding on the government, we could then truely take control. If such a thing is not currently possible, how do we make it happen.

Who would decide what we vote on? We could use the petition system, using an online government website. I'm pretty sure Microsoft could come up with something. 

This method would be open to people of all political groups. If government health-care were to pass as a referendum, there would be a mandate. Congress would have to work out the details.



Bookmark:



Viewing 1 - 6 out of 6 Comments

From: kamisos77
03/11/2010 14:22:58

Direct Democracy works better in a small village (ala Ancient Athens) than in a huge Republic like the United States. What about people who dont have the internet or cant get get to a library computer with internet due to working two jobs and taking care of the kids?



From: Phaedrus
03/11/2010 09:10:49

On initiatives, which are people started laws, voted on by the peoples. Those are legal in many states, AZ, CA, among them. Problem is, people always are willing to vote in knew programs, and always willing to vote down taxes. So here's that math:

More liabilities with Less income = recipe for disaster OR huge deficits

As for only allowing those who are qualified by testing on knowledge, be careful what you wish for. A poll of Americans, found that the least knowledgable Americans were Fox News watchers. The best informed were watchers of The Daily Show. How'll that work out for the Tea Party Movement? And is it uncomfortable, to have the GOP puppeteers' hands up your backside?



From: indie
03/10/2010 22:43:18

If anything, there should be very substantial qualifications for voting, thereby limiting voting to those who actually have a clue.


Unbelievable.  Just unbelievable. Bet you LOVED those ole literacy tests, eh freedomfrter?


Be careful what you wish for.  Remember Sarah Palin couldn't name any newspapers she read and thinks there is a a department of law.   She would flunk.



From: freedomfyter
03/10/2010 22:12:50

A higher degree of democracy is not necessarily a good thing. Look at how easily the American voter was fooled by "hope" and "change" mantras.

The "typical" American voter doesn't pay much, if any, attention to national affairs until the last two to four weeks before a major election. If anything, there should be very substantial qualifications for voting, thereby limiting voting to those who actually have a clue.



From: aTexan2
03/10/2010 20:56:21

Things voted on here do not compel congress to action.


I read a short story long age in which, when you pay your taxes you got to specify what the money was to be used for. If you didn't like the choises on the list, you could add your own. The author started the catagory "world peace". So many people supported it, there was peace in the world in 6 months.


It was a nice idea, but fantasy. The idea could have merit.



From: babyminnie
03/10/2010 19:32:55

Tex - There is a way for people to vote on 'stuff'.  There's a way to vote on everything congress votes on - plus all these polls that come out everyday for one thing or another - polling 1,000 people or less in some instances.  Can you imagine if millions of people could voice their opinion on all issues?  Well, there is a way - It's called 'THE PEOPLE DECIDE'  This website has to go national with some important backing.  The last thing you would want is government involvement.  We all have to get the word out.  This website could explode.