Is our political system outdated?

[Dibbs]

@Frank

I assume you’re referring to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. I can find no indication that Ms. Feinstein said any such thing in front of the Senate. It would have been difficult for her to do so; she was not elected to the Senate until 1992.

I don’t have time to go get the link, as too many things call. I just know that I am right; she did in fact do that which I state she did.
Leaving aside your inaccuracies: Yes, that is exactly my idea of representative government. I elect someone to serve as my representative and I trust to their knowledge and judgement to do what they think best. Should I dislike what they do, I vote for someone else next time.

Then I surmise that you’re okay with her, according many radio talk-show hosts, having used her position to award contracts to her husband’s business, adding up to millions of dollars. (No doubt she’s guilty, as Dr. Savage and others would be liable for slander.)

Your standards and expectations and mine are not the same; mine are higher.

[Dibbs]

@Shodan

I’d rather not have the US government run like American Idol, thanks just the same.

Regards,
Shodan

Comparing that which I’m proposing to the game show is seriously ridiculous, but suit yourself; you’re not the only one that can’t think outside the box.

[Dibbs]

@Northern_Piper

And concur with Frank and Philly Guy: I want my representatives to elect sound judgment, as their full-time job. Not to make a few clicks on the computer and then start playing Minecraft.

Sound judgment?? Like how Bush kept reading My Little Goat to school kids for 7 minutes after hearing that the towers had been hit … or how Clinton did that disgusting thing with that young lady … or how our elected officials got us into that horrible Vietnam mess … or how Finestien gave the finger to her constituents (as I described in another post) … or how these political geniuses have us blowing trillions of dollars in the middle east while having our young men and women coming back either severely crippled physically and emotionally or in body bags while at the same time acting as if the millions invading our southern border is no biggie? Please, tell me you’re joking!

[Dibbs]

@up_the_junction

A bettter system is staring you in the face but outside te US - pretty well anywhere outside the US. Take a hint from the fact 140 odd countries have been created since the USA and none - none - copied the US model.

That would be okay - do your own thing, right - but the US system has proven to be seriously susceptible to amoral capitalism. many would say the so-called ‘elected’ politicians represent capitalism first and their voters a distant second.

So yes, tear up that out-dated piece of paper that’s held in some bizarre Bill and Ted’s Big Adventure awe and chop in any old Parliamentary system off the shelf.

For a second you had me thinking you were onboard with my idea.

[Smapti]

@Dibbs

Sound judgment?? Like how Bush kept reading My Little Goat to school kids for 7 minutes after hearing that the towers had been hit …

…And your proposed solution to this is to replace one decider with several hundred million?

BTW, it was “The Pet Goat”, not “My Little Goat”, he wasn’t the one reading it, and short of ducking into a phone booth and emerging dressed as Superman, I doubt there’s anything Bush personally could have done in those seven minutes that would have made a tinker’s dam worth of difference.

or how Clinton did that disgusting thing with that young lady …

…which has nothing to do with anything, or are you going to suggest that we let people vote on what sex acts public officials are allowed to engage in?

or how Finestien gave the finger to her constituents (as I described in another post) …

A post which has already been explained to you was incorrect on pretty much every level, and you’re still not even spelling her name right.

or how these political geniuses have us blowing trillions of dollars in the middle east while having our young men and women coming back either severely crippled physically and emotionally or in body bags while at the same time acting as if the millions invading our southern border is no biggie?

So we should… invade Mexico? I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say here.

Btw, do you honestly think the debt is something to sneeze at?

“The debt” is not something that represents a singular issue in and of itself, the existence of national debt is not necessarily a bad thing, and simply “paying it off” would likely do more harm than good.

Frankly, I’m not sure you even really understand most of the issues you’re trying to solve.

[Dibbs]

@Mnemnosyne

If you’re talking about direct democracy enabled by our technology, while technically feasible today and the security holes could probably be worked out, it’s infeasible in that the majority of the people do not, and cannot, understand what they would be voting on sufficiently to make informed decisions.

I give people voting age more credit than that. Every day the vast majority of people are constantly making decisions about things that affect their lives. I’d be willing to throw the dice and unleash the collective power of the majority of people to get it right.

Many bills in government today consist of hundreds of pages of legal jargon which the vast majority of people find inscrutable, incomprehensible babble. Although some of this could be simplified if it was in the best interests of those writing the bills, it could not be simplified enough, while still also closing all loopholes and providing an actual foundation for the law rather than leaving much of the law up to be interpreted in court depending on what the judges feel a particular clause means. Language is an imperfect tool that cannot fully encapsulate all meaning, therefore it is impossible to actually say what you mean without the capability of being misunderstood - especially when considering the possibility that some people want to misunderstand, so that they get to do what they want.

The first sentence in the above paragraph speaks more to the willful desire of some clowns to try and get away with shenanigans than anything else. I would need a very specific example of what sort of situation would be too much for the average pot-smoking joe to handle. Seriously, there’s too much government and the things that require government are pretty much already in place and those things coming down the pike aren’t all that tough if it’s not left to game players and other sorts of ill-willed people to frame the questions and make clear the issues.

In order for the average person to participate directly in this system, they would need to be educated on the legal language. Furthermore, they would have to both have, and be willing to expend sufficient time on this endeavor to read every bill that they vote on. People will not do that - there’s no way to educate them, there’s definitely no way to force them to read the bills. If they are required to vote, they’ll take a single glance at the name of the bill, decide whether that sounds good to them or not, and vote yes/no based on such basic non-information. This already happens to some degree even within our representative system! Many representatives do not fully read bills. Names like ‘the PATRIOT act’ are invented specifically to influence people because that’s about all they will ever actually know about the bill.

I don’t accept the premise that most people aren’t that bright that they can’t figure out what needs to be done as long as things are put in human terms and not some academician going out on an ego trip in order to keep himself relevant to the status quo (while sucking up big bucks). But then again maybe your point is solid and I’m being a little naïve, not sure.:o

Our system of government could certainly use improvement. It could certainly stand to take advantage of modern technology more than it does now, to provide more convenience to everyone involved. But although technology allows direct democracy in theory, it would never work in practice. The only way for direct democracy to work would be if we were all mentally linked in such a way as to have full understanding and comprehension of every matter that is brought before us, and sufficient processing power and information available that we could be fully informed. Only a world in which the voters have complete and near-perfect information beamed directly into their minds would permit direct democracy to be anything other than a colossal failure.

Local, State, Federal. It all breaks down nicely for people to take in chunk-size morsels at a reasonable rate without it getting all that complicated and overwhelming. Just look at the absolute mess we’ve got now on so many levels due to so few people having so much power in a system that is clearly broken beyond all get out.

That said, technology might allow representatives to represent smaller numbers of voters. The house of representatives, for instance, might be allowed to increase beyond 435 members, so that each representative could go back to representing tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands of people. I am not sure if this would be a good idea, but it is at least a practical idea that could be studied and considered, which would not be as ridiculous as trying to implement direct democracy.

The more I hear about this horrible thing called direct democracy, the more I like it!

[Dibbs]

@Smapti

…And your proposed solution to this is to replace one decider with several hundred million?

BTW, it was “The Pet Goat”, not “My Little Goat”, he wasn’t the one reading it, and short of ducking into a phone booth and emerging dressed as Superman, I doubt there’s anything Bush personally could have done in those seven minutes that would have made a tinker’s dam worth of difference.

…which has nothing to do with anything, or are you going to suggest that we let people vote on what sex acts public officials are allowed to engage in?

A post which has already been explained to you was incorrect on pretty much every level, and you’re still not even spelling her name right.

So we should… invade Mexico? I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say here.

“The debt” is not something that represents a singular issue in and of itself, the existence of national debt is not necessarily a bad thing, and simply “paying it off” would likely do more harm than good.

Frankly, I’m not sure you even really understand most of the issues you’re trying to solve.

I’m sure you don’t.

[Dibbs]

Well folks, it’s been fun! No time left to go back and forth as time is short.

I have done a decent job of laying out the general idea. I don’t mind if someone runs with it and gets great fame and fortune for it, as long as the Dibbs System of Governing gets put in place before the whole dirty-rotten construct we now suffer under is kicked into the ash heap of ineffectualness before it’s too late!

And remember: the future of our children’s children is counting on all of us to do what’s right for them now, no matter how scary change may seem!

[Smapti]

Why did you start a thread here if you weren’t interested in participating in it?

[DocCathode]

@Smapti

Why did you start a thread here if you weren’t interested in participating in it?

My feeling is that the OP expected that we’d all hail him as a genius. When we instead pointed out the massive flaws in his idea, he was completely unprepared. So he’s leaving.

[davida03801]

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
Winston Churchill

I would include the OP suggestion with all the others.

[Dibbs]

@Smapti

Why did you start a thread here if you weren’t interested in participating in it?

I think I did participate. But other things in life call. And right now this old boy needs a nap.:o

[Dibbs]

@DocCathode

My feeling is that the OP expected that we’d all hail him as a genius. When we instead pointed out the massive flaws in his idea, he was completely unprepared. So he’s leaving.

Lol. I confess I do have an ego, though a tattered one. But, I know full-well that I ain’t anything to write home about in the intellect department (which is why I think it’s so cool that a nonentity like me can have exchanges with so many smart folks in this place). Yet, I kinda think I’ve made my case rather clear … and that most of you folks (strangely) prefer the current system, with a little tweaking here and there.

But come late 2016 … I wonder how many of you are going to start to see the light when, once again(!), those clowns start calling you during dinner time every two-minutes lamely asking, “Do you know there’s an election tomorrow? How do you intend to vote?”

And to that nonsense all I can say is: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Dibbs]

@davida03801

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
Winston Churchill

I would include the OP suggestion with all the others.

Hmm perhaps I didn’t explain my views very well, because I strongly feel that I’m on to something with this home computer thing replacing the junk system that’s leading us and the world down into an inescapable abyss.

At least when we’re all down there, I hope none of you will ever dare suggest that I was in some way involved with the horrid predicament; 'cause I tried my best to sound the alarm!:eek:

[Dibbs]

Yesterday a couple of you said that I was wrong about what I had said about Dian finestine regarding her giving the finger to her constituents. I didn’t have the time then to look into it but I did a few moments ago, and so here we find that I was in fact right. Feel free to send me a case of beer and a couple of pizzas for having put me through this and questioning my integrity (and no, I don’t mind not spelling a person’s name incorrectly when they’ve sunken this low):

P.S. Sorry about the ugly comments made by a couple of the YouTube users, I had nothing to do with that.

[Smapti]

…Well, aside from the parts about what Feinstein said, what she meant by it, when she said it, what it was in regards to, and what her name was, you were absolutely right.

[Dibbs]

@Smapti

…Well, aside from the parts about what Feinstein said, what she meant by it, when she said it, what it was in regards to, and what her name was, you were absolutely right.

Pretty good, you got one out of five right.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Dibbs

Yesterday a couple of you said that I was wrong about what I had said about Dian finestine regarding her giving the finger to her constituents. I didn’t have the time then to look into it but I did a few moments ago, and so here we find that I was in fact right. Feel free to send me a case of beer and a couple of pizzas for having put me through this and questioning my integrity (and no, I don’t mind not spelling a person’s name incorrectly when they’ve sunken this low):

P.S. Sorry about the ugly comments made by a couple of the YouTube users, I had nothing to do with that.

As I cited earlier, Feinstein says in that video that the objections made by the constituents were to an earlier proposal that was no longer on the table and one that she was also against. So you remain thoroughly wrong.

Besides the obvious comment that you always need to listen carefully to what is being said and understand the context in which it is said, this nuance makes clear the giant holes in your proposal. Government is not a standardized test allowing you to simply fill in circles next to a few predetermined answers. Proposed legislation is detailed, complicated, and ever-changing. People do not have time to stay current with every change in every line of every law.

Look at yourself. Seven years later and you can’t get any of the facts right. You are your own worst example.

[Dibbs]

@Exapno_Mapcase

As I cited earlier, Feinstein says in that video that the objections made by the constituents were to an earlier proposal that was no longer on the table and one that she was also against. So you remain thoroughly wrong.

Besides the obvious comment that you always need to listen carefully to what is being said and understand the context in which it is said, this nuance makes clear the giant holes in your proposal. Government is not a standardized test allowing you to simply fill in circles next to a few predetermined answers. Proposed legislation is detailed, complicated, and ever-changing. People do not have time to stay current with every change in every line of every law.

Look at yourself. Seven years later and you can’t get any of the facts right. You are your own worst example.

You’re not making a lick of sense. In the first 43 seconds of her opening comment she’s (nervously) admitting up front to screwing over her constituents, and just because she references some prior stuff (in a weak and pathetic effort to convolute something so simple) doesn’t preclude her constituents from not knowing what the particulars are with any of it. You and finestiene are birds of the same feather, actually flattering yourselves to think your wisdom and knowledge is somehow superior to vast numbers of common folks that have a deep and sincere concern about doing what’s right.

[DocCathode]

@Exapno_Mapcase

As I cited earlier, Feinstein says in that video that the objections made by the constituents were to an earlier proposal that was no longer on the table and one that she was also against. So you remain thoroughly wrong.

Besides the obvious comment that you always need to listen carefully to what is being said and understand the context in which it is said, this nuance makes clear the giant holes in your proposal. Government is not a standardized test allowing you to simply fill in circles next to a few predetermined answers. Proposed legislation is detailed, complicated, and ever-changing. People do not have time to stay current with every change in every line of every law.

Look at yourself. Seven years later and you can’t get any of the facts right. You are your own worst example.

You are welcome at my place for dinner anytime. The obvious choice is duck soup.