First off,

Do away with the electoral college.

Secondly,

Get some freaking third parties out there. (more than just one!)

Greens, libertarians, facists, etc...

I don't care who it is, two parties don't work.


Finally....

In my opinion...

"We the people..." has become obsolete due to our apathy, due to our unwillingness to act. We sit by, and are placated. We don't do anything about what we feel is wrong. We are too wrapped up in proclaiming our freedom of speech, and exercizing it - that we don't do anything. It's "Blah blah blah!" No, "Do do do."

Ya understand what I mean? I hope so, maybe you don't....i have been off balance today.

"get some freaking third parties out there"

There are several.  They fail by and large not because of any institutional blockage keeping them from power, but from their own inability to market themselves as a viable alternative.  Often they're very narrow-focused groups that only care for a subset of the issues being discussed.  Like it or not, the Dems and Repubs do a better job at least paying lip service to what most people care about day-in-day-out.

A viable third party will emerge once one provides enough reason to those discouraged with the current parties to join.

There are several. They fail by and large not because of any institutional blockage keeping them from power, but from their own inability to market themselves as a viable alternative. Often they're very narrow-focused groups that only care for a subset of the issues being discussed. Like it or not, the Dems and Repubs do a better job at least paying lip service to what most people care about day-in-day-out.

It drives me up a wall. We call ourselves a democracy, a republic....but, we're not really. We're defined, chained, dictated by two parties. I know as sure as hell that I'm not defined by either, my beliefs place me in various spots.

I can buy all the tools to perform dentistry on my family. Technology has allowed this.  Should I do dentristy?

I like the system we have because our government is complex enough and the issues complex enough that I would prefer people who are spending their full time to be performing that work. If we are unhappy with the results, we vote in someone else.

I'd hate to see the direction the country took if we reached the point where people were directly voting on each bill. At that point, you might as well just hand over control to the media who would have even more influence on the way our government is run.

I like the system we have because our government is complex enough and the issues complex enough that I would prefer people who are spending their full time to be performing that work. If we are unhappy with the results, we vote in someone else.

Amen. The two-party system works in the essence that it doesn't. The fillibusters, etc. make it impossible for either party to encroach on the other, leaving us in a state of relative status quo. The minute either becomes too strong is when the system doesn't work.

Have you ever wondered why other "democracies" don't work as well as ours? Because they have too many parties. the two-party system is the most viable form of "democracy".

I can buy all the tools to perform dentistry on my family. Technology has allowed this. Should I do dentristy?

yes, but practicing dentistry requires a special license which requires an advanced degree. it is a skill that requires certain prerequisites.

i don't remember any special requirements other than citizenship and age to be a legislator, constitutionally speaking.

The U.S. Constitution specifies only (in Article I, section 2) that No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

there is no specific knowledge required for the representative.

now i am not saying that we should directly vote on every issue necessarily. i am throwing thequestion out for debate. does our democracy stand for an 'overhaul?" where we can adapt to the world we live in today, one that is much more specialized than in 1791? is it adequate to have a guy in charge of the internet in congress who thinks of it as a "bunch of tubes?" and a lack of expertise in comittee chairmen like that is more common than we would like to think.

should our democratic principles be expanded? and if so, how? if not, why?

"I'd hate to see the direction the country took if we reached the point where people were directly voting on each bill. At that point, you might as well just hand over control to the media who would have even more influence on the way our government is run."

I agree with this a lot, that would be very dangerous as well. The media has its teeth into government enough, especially cable news networks. I think if a society like south korea got into doing this though since they are so tech and computer connected, and it worked, it would be an interesting expriement.

"There are several. They fail by and large not because of any institutional blockage keeping them from power, but from their own inability to market themselves as a viable alternative."

They fail a lot because they can't get on the ballot, they aren't allowed to debate on equal footing with the D and R, and they aren't treated seriously. Additionally they don't have the financial backing because the D and R's control soooo many more grassroots and lobbyist contributions that they are able to out promote and outlast any serious opposition.

This is why the general public is apathetic to voting, and why there isn't really too many differences between the parties. You don't have to be a D or R to be willing to say/do whatever it takes to get elected. Very few independent candidates ever make it up to the level of the D and R candidate and in order to do so they have to have a s**t ton of money. Locally maybe it's a different story but as you get higher up, where you need more and more people to know about you, and your campaign, sleeker advertising, ever wonder why candidates do the targeting of particular demographics, because its efficiency, targeting the greatest number of likely voters hedging and rubbing the numbers.

In the future of this system, there probably won't be huge margins of victory between candidates of the D and R, but there sure is a huge descrepancy between them and any 3rd party or 4th party. Kinda sad really, because neither party cares for jack, about the average american, or the country, only on holding the majority of votes and power. Individual members, they care about gettin elected/re-elected first and foremost on the whole, career politicians care about that more then anyone else. LOL. Occassionally there'll be a candidate or elected politican that does care but they'll be replaced unfortunately by the ruthless crook that is better at screwing people in favor of other vote/contribution getters. Geez that sounds apathetic. Sum it up for ya?

It would be interesting if the government would tax campaign contributions and give an equal footing to the opposition candidacies, so that D's and R's aren't unfairly given a huge advantage, ahhhhh but there's a snowballz chance in hell of ever seeing that in this reality, notice there is no rush to do this, because both th D's and R's are in power and will work together more often then not to prevent something fair from ever happening to challenge their power grip over the political system. 3rd party candidates at the national level, bah, probably not for a while.

It isn't that 3rd party ideas aren't as good or superior to the stats quo, hell they are probably superior, what party if not for D's and R's would argue that we stick with the constant bickering between them and daily accusations/coverups, kickbacks, lobbying on taxpayer dollars, corruption, lack of efficient government vs, a minimalist governement that is efficient, doesn't intrude into our lives as much, and works with state goverments rather then just spends the majority of the time pointing fingers rather then working to get things done.

If such a part existed, and you can believe it isn't the D's or R's they'd be put out of business because the D's and R's would both be telling you and me that they couldn't be trusted. I tend to believe that the guys in charge have done a pretty s****y job, why am I not running?

What's the point? Apathetic, and pathetic, it is both.

Actually a straight democracy is a bad idea in general. It sounds good until you consider that every individual is subject to the whim of the majority.

Suppose someone decided that all Christians should be executed. Suppose they had the political will to muster a majority. Then Christians would have no choice but to disobey the law, flee the country, or report to the gallows. While the example seems extreme, substitute the word "Christians" for "gays", "abortion doctors", "Muslims", or "drug dealers", and the idea of a majority voting for such a law seems less and less farfetched.

There must be safeguards for the rights of minorities, as long as those minorities do not infringe on the rights of others. Representative democracy, while imperfect, still is preferable to the mob rule that a direct democracy could quickly become.

Although we find ourselves yet again on opposing sides, Sean, I do thank you for asking the question.

Your idea is flawed from the start.  Ok, so we all get to vote on the bills that our representatives vote on now.  In your concept of government, who would write the bills?  Who would do all the research that goes on in writing the bill?  Who would be responsible for posting all the information gained from the research?

If all our Senators and Housemembers did was show up to vote, then your idea would be a pretty good one, but voting is only 1 part of their job.

At a time when 40% voter turnout is considered "high", I doubt the nation would want to be politically active enough to do it ourselves.

~~~~~

Zoomba:

There are several.  They fail by and large not because of any institutional blockage keeping them from power, but from their own inability to market themselves as a viable alternative.

This is only partly true.  Last presidential election, the candidates for the Libertarian and Green parties were arrested when they showed up to participate in the so-called "presidential debate".  I'm not sure about the candidate for the Green Party, but the LP candidate was on almost every state's ballot.

I ask you, if either the Republican or Democrat candidates were arrested, it would cause a firestorm of press.  The arrest of two other candidates generated NONE.  We hear a lot of accusations about supressing voter turnout, yet when it is both the Republicans and Democrats supressing the 3rd party vote, nobody seems to care.

Our system does need to be fixed, but most of those fixes should be GOING BACK to how the framers intended, not trying to mess with it more.  For one thing, the Senate needs to be returned to the States where it belongs. 

The Electoral College shouldn't be abolished, but realigning the representation would probably be a good idea.

In 2004, almost as many people voted in American Idol than who voted for Gorge Bush. Not only that, but people, in general, are stupid. This is not the ideal environment for direct democracy.

Something I've been wanting to be able to do for a while now is to retract my support for the candidate I voted for when he/she starts to adhere to the party line or against the party line, in general: when they start voting in a different way than I would expect them to do. I mean, that's allright if the different point of view happens to coincide with mine, but when it doesn't I feel I should be able to show I do not agree.

Anyway, I think there's room for improvement between keeping the system as it is and allowing everyone to vote on each issue for themselves.

ok,,,1st off. i am NOT concluding that we should instantly give everyone the vote on every single bill and issue. so please stop telling me i am wrong in so many words...i am merely asking the questions. to rephrase, what i want to know, from this "tech savvy" group, is does our democracy need ANY technology to be added to our system to make it more "of, for and by the people?" i do believe that yes, there are technologies that could help our system of government. some of these technologies present new challenges. some of those challenges are logistical or have to do with verification and fairness. some have to do with laws not even addressing certain things.

for example, we have gone to electronic, computerized voting. this voting presents issues our forefathers never envisioned or conceived. do we need to clarify new standards and practices when dealing with them vs a paper ballot?

to give a what if outside the realm of what i mentioned in the orig. article.......what if power was out for an entire day, or a good portion of it. or say a computer's memory was wiped clean, either on purpose or by accident....most states election laws call for the election to be held on a specific tuesday of the month and year. and for the votes to be counted by certain dates. should judges go outside current laws and make reasonable judgements to reschedule the election or extend the counting period? should legislators change the existing laws? is it "tough luck?"

This is only partly true. Last presidential election, the candidates for the Libertarian and Green parties were arrested when they showed up to participate in the so-called "presidential debate". I'm not sure about the candidate for the Green Party, but the LP candidate was on almost every state's ballot

but everyone knows the presidential debates are the biggest publicity events in the election. and our debate system stinks on ice. it is designed to supress the 3rd parties. the "commission on presidential debates" or whatever tehy are calling themselves these days is really a thinly veiled corporation. it's not a non partisan, wanting to be fair, "commission" as their name would suggest. every 4 years they shut out the 3rd party candidates by arbitrarily setting a "bar" that they know the 3rd parties won' hit. and of course, the major parties, not wanting any of their vote to be splintered off, stay mute on the issue.

The Electoral College shouldn't be abolished, but realigning the representation would probably be a good idea

yes indeed. and i'm not so sure that breaking it down by states is a good idea. especially concerning larger states where opinions can be widely varied. take california for example, where the north is much more democratic leaning than the conservative south. but every 4 years millions of californians have their presidential vote essentially muted by the electoral college's obligation to cast all the ballots for one candidate.

what was practical in 1791 is overly simplistic and almost silly in 2006. how could it be improved?


Although we find ourselves yet again on opposing sides, Sean, I do thank you for asking the question.

again,,,we're not on opposing sides...most of that article is asking questions to start a dialog. your participation puts us on the same side (along with everyone else responding) of those who care enough to ask questions and examine issues.

thanks everyone for your responses so far...interesting comments and much food for thought.

does our democracy need ANY technology to be added to our system

I think there is too much technology in our system.  It's ironic that, with all of our technological advances, a simple X on piece of paper is still the best way to vote.

I think there is too much technology in our system. It's ironic that, with all of our technological advances, a simple X on piece of paper is still the best way to vote.

interesting ted...and there is something to say for doing it "old school." but what about day to day legislating? our congress can and sometimes does vote "electronically." yet it is not required on all votes. should it be? it seems the only reason to go "voice vote" with ayes and nays is to cover accountability. shold legislators be still required to "be in the hall" when their vote can be equally and as effectively recorded from anywhere in the world?

I like the states that award the electoral votes according to the district.

Should legislators be still required to "be in the hall" when their vote can be equally and as effectively recorded from anywhere in the world?

Yes. It's their job to be there. As a software developer, I could work from home, but I'm more effective in working with other people when I'm in the office.