Experment with Democracy.

[Jarod]

With technology it might be possable to do away with the legislative or executive branch all together.

It would be an interesting experiment at the local level to do away with a city counsel, you would still need administrators. But a good computer program could allow all issues to be brought to a vote by all citizins who were interested. You could come home and sit up to the computer and vote on the issues of that week.

Any ideas?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The turnout would be astronomically low for every vote, and it'd literally be a full time job, for at least a few months of the year, to keep up with all the votes.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yeah, and you couldn't get rid of the executive branch, LOL, or else there wouldn't be a government. "Executive branch" is a fancy term for the person who has to run the government and the physical side of the government itself.

 

[Jarod]

The turnout would be astronomically low for every vote, and it'd literally be a full time job, for at least a few months of the year, to keep up with all the votes.

True, you could at least start with just the important portions.

 

[Damocles]

With technology it might be possable to do away with the legislative or executive branch all together.

It would be an interesting experiment at the local level to do away with a city counsel, you would still need administrators. But a good computer program could allow all issues to be brought to a vote by all citizins who were interested. You could come home and sit up to the computer and vote on the issues of that week.

Any ideas?

A true democracy would inevitably lead to the oppression of the minority. And you cannot get rid of the Executive Branch as they are the cops. You would simply be replacing the Legislative Branch with a larger group.

 

[Kamala Trump]

A true democracy would inevitably lead to the oppression of the minority. And you cannot get rid of the Executive Branch as they are the cops. You would simply be replacing the Legislative Branch with a larger group.

Considering that a representative system is oppression of everyone, Im willing to take a chance with pure referendum politics.

 

[Jarod]

A true democracy would inevitably lead to the oppression of the minority. And you cannot get rid of the Executive Branch as they are the cops. You would simply be replacing the Legislative Branch with a larger group.

I think you are correct, or you could turn the executive into more of an administrative roll.

 

[Jarod]

As far as opression of the minority, You are correct it would be worse than what it currently is.

But out world is getting splintered so deeply into so many types of minorities, almost everyone can claim some sort of minority status (not true minorities, but percieved ones) that it just might work, at least on the local level.

 

[Damocles]

I think you are correct, or you could turn the executive into more of an administrative roll.

Well, you could take away their power of veto and signatory and only allow them to do certain things.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Obama '08

 

[Jarod]

Well, you could take away their power of veto and signatory and only allow them to do certain things.

Maybe a veto would be helpfull with the tyariny over the minority thing.

 

[Damocles]

Maybe a veto would be helpfull with the tyariny over the minority thing.

That is what the Judicial Branch is supposed to do.

 

[Jarod]

So, just do away with the legislative branch. I like to see a city or a county do it and see how it worked.

 

[Bonestorm]

There are some places where a variant of this works fairly well. Many towns and municipalities in Vermont operate under a town meeting format where one day per year the whole town gets together in a high school gym to set the town budget, taxes, new ordinances, etc. . . It rare and does require some degree of homogeneity among the population and a relatively small population, but it can work in some situations.

 

[Jarod]

That is what the Judicial Branch is supposed to do.

The veto can do that also. If an executive is elected by a large base of individuals he would be less likely to allow opression of a minority.

The legislative does it also, using mostly the bill or rights, but they are not the only one to do it!

 

[Socrtease]

The Founders, those naugahide brainwashed invisible hand NWOer's, knew exactly what Damo has already said. Mob rule oppresses minorities. Something that those on the far right and left in this country would probably have no problem with so long as the mob agreed with them. No mobocracy or theocracy. I like Republican forms of govt.

 

[Kamala Trump]

The Founders, those naugahide brainwashed invisible hand NWOer's, knew exactly what Damo has already said. Mob rule oppresses minorities. Something that those on the far right and left in this country would probably have no problem with so long as the mob agreed with them. No mobocracy or theocracy. I like Republican forms of govt.

That can happen. But oligarchs who mouth platitudes to get elected and then do whatever they want are also a big issue. The system is broken. Pure referendum politics is the future. Repression and lies are the past.

 

[Bonestorm]

The Founders, those naugahide brainwashed invisible hand NWOer's, knew exactly what Damo has already said. Mob rule oppresses minorities. Something that those on the far right and left in this country would probably have no problem with so long as the mob agreed with them. No mobocracy or theocracy. I like Republican forms of govt.

The Republican form of government clause is mere surplusage.

 

[Damocles]

The veto can do that also. If an executive is elected by a large base of individuals he would be less likely to allow opression of a minority.

The legislative does it also, using mostly the bill or rights, but they are not the only one to do it!

If all people vote for a law, a veto is worthless. The Judiciary judges on the constitutionality, not the Executive. They can say that is why they vetoed it, but deciding on constitutionality is not their part of the checks and balances. It would be easier to have a knowledgeable group decide on that before the vote is taken.

 

[Jarod]

If all people vote for a law, a veto is worthless. The Judiciary judges on the constitutionality, not the Executive. They can say that is why they vetoed it, but deciding on constitutionality is not their part of the checks and balances. It would be easier to have a knowledgeable group decide on that before the vote is taken.

An executive is generally elected by a broader base than the legislators. One who is elected by a broader base is, in theroy, less likely to allow condone or promote opression of any particular minority, thus the veto, in theory, would be used to prevent such opression. In theory the executive elected by a broader base of people, would be more responsive to a minority, because his majority would have to be made up or a cooalition of minorities. It would not be based on constitutionality but who he represents.