The party of "No"

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

1. Many legislators don't read the bills they vote on.
2. Many legislators (I'm thinking career politicians) no longer represent the best interests of their constituents.
3. Many laws have been passed without constituent knowledge and or approval.
4. Lobbyists have a great deal of influence on the law making process. Instead of them making backroom deals and corrupting political leaders, they can come to "the people" and lobby for any new laws they feel are needed.
5. I don't think we are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Somewhere along the way we just became the governed.
6. Many constituents recognize all of the above and feel disenfranchised from the political process.

1) You solve (assuming you can build a verification process that works) but it only matters for some bills.

2) You don't solve. Voter turn out would be far to low.

3) You don't solve. Almost no-one can be bothered to read bills and that isn't going to change.

4) You don't solve. You'll take power away from some lobbies, you'll make others much more important. Think how much support Glenn Beck can mobilize every time he gets a tear in his eye. Imagine if it actually mattered.

5 + 6) Never were.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

If I can be forgiving for suggesting an alternative strategy, how about this:

All legislation should have a built-in sunset clause. Unless re-ratified by Congress and signed by the President, laws would automatically expire after some reasonable period of time (say, for example, 16 years/4 presidential terms). This could have the following consequences:
1. All legislation would be periodically re-examined. Ineffective laws could just be allowed to expire with no legislation needed to take them off the books.
2. Laws deemed to be useful could be tweaked to improve them in light of past experience.
3. Legislators would be kept busy enough reviewing expiring laws that they would have much less time to come up with new ones. Issues would have to be pressing to be able to make it onto the calendar.

Of course, transparency is also critical, so no more anonymous amendments or holds. If you want to add something to a bill, you have to be willing to "own it" and show your face.

Amendments would have to be openly declared in advance, proposed far enough ahead of time that they could be discussed, and must be directly related in topic to the bill they are attached to.

Every bill should also have a preamble that clearly explains the constitutional justification for the legislation. The idea is to avoid having to later parse "intent" from letters/emails/tweets that hapen to get preserved for posterity. Also laws that are so unconstitutional that no justification could be proposed wouldn't get any further than the trial baloon stage.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

sunset clauses are usually the right way, but not so much for a something like Social Security, Medicare, or health care. But I think you could start by either requiring a sunset or a preamble defending the choice not to have one.

Forcing all amendments in advance tends to defeat the notion of debate and compromise, though in reality it should work for significant legislation.

Preventing unassociated riders would improve public perception, though it's a bit challenging to define it better than "I know it when I see it."

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

sunset clauses are usually the right way, but not so much for a something like Social Security, Medicare, or health care. But I think you could start by either requiring a sunset or a preamble defending the choice not to have one.

I can agree with that. Or, maybe have a longer term for the sunset. I can see how it could be very disruptive to get to two days before expiry without knowing if a program like social security will be renewed or not. That wouldn't happen if Congress could get their act together and behave like responsible adults, but we all know the chances of that happening.

Quote

Forcing all amendments in advance tends to defeat the notion of debate and compromise, though in reality it should work for significant legislation.

I was thinking in terms of the extra stuff that gets put in at the last second, between the end of the debate and the vote, so no-one knows it's in there until the bill has been passed. The idea is that amendments (and riders) should be brought up far enough in advance that they can be discussed and, if needed, modified through compromise, or rejected.

Quote

Preventing unassociated riders would improve public perception, though it's a bit challenging to define it better than "I know it when I see it."

Also true that there is a certain amount of grey area there. However, what I'm thinking of is the totally unrelated matter that could never pass on it's own, but instead is stuck onto a crucial bill that everybody knows has to pass.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[ManagingPrime 0]

Generally, I like the idea. However, I don't think it's really "fresh" enough to address the growing dissatisfaction among the youth.

While this applies to Europe more than the US I find that the sentiments are shared here. My generation and those who are younger are quite aware of the "illusion of options" and in both cases there is a desire for a more radical departure from the status quo, however, I concede the Europeans are a bit ahead of their American counterparts.

http://rt.com/news/eu-unemployment-change-decentralization-065/

Some interesting quotes from the article:

“I think its [Europe] quite a dangerous situation because that means you have politicians and bureaucrats ruling over nearly 500 million people, not necessarily do they know always what the best things are for us,” Matej Arsenak Ogorevc told RT.

“The consequences of a lost generation are not merely economic, but are societal, with the risk of young people opting out of the democratic participation in society,” the report warns.

Just because you have large groups of people that have opted out of democratic participation, it does not mean they don't care about the issues. They just don't think anyone is listening or has their best interests at heart. That's dangerous when you look at the whole host of issues not just facing Americans in the coming years and decades, but all people as we become a more globalized society.

Ignore that youth at your peril. Just because they are not voting does not mean they are not a force to be reckoned with. IMHO time is running out to bring people back into the tent and that's not going to be done without some grand ideas and restructuring of how our democracy works. Otherwise, I think we could see the emergence of Libertarian Socialism...not that I'm against it, but that change could be very painful to those who have a vested interest in the current system.

-Rant over.

[kallend 1,643]

Quote

Quote

I would like to hear from the lawyers on here on what they see as problems legally in this.

In theory, there are no problems legally with it, since it would be done by Constitutional amendment, and the Constitution is always highest law in the land.

Well, that and some other things...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Rant over.

I didn't see your comments as a rant, I think you bring up some good points.

Part of the problem, I think, is a disconnect in thinking where people are on the one hand so cynical/jaded that they have given up on their government, yet at exactly the same time they believe that it is the government that should provide them with a good job, housing, beer money, etc. I suspect this type of thinking is more prevalent in Europe than it is here. So, young people will riot because they think the government isn't taking care of them. Things are a bit more complicated in the States, some people think the government should feed/house/employ them, but an equal or greater number think the government should just get out of the way.

Certainly, I suppose modern technology could well make more inclusive/democratic political processes possible. Let's say we develop a system where every citizen gets to vote on every bill, and even gets to propose legislation, say by petitioning the government. You've already raised the problem that politicians don't educate themselves on every bill they vote on. How would you ensure that citizens voting directly on legislation have bothered to inform themselves? We now live in a culture where money = speech, so the vested interest with the most money has the biggest megaphone. Is there any way to ensure the public hears (much less understands) an objective discussion of the pros and cons of legislation before voting on it? If not, isn't there a risk that such a democracy would just become bread and circuses for the most vocal agitators, without even a middleman to possibly put some brakes on the process (not that they have been doing that).

Anyway the whole thing is above my pay grade for sure.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Part of the problem, I think, is a disconnect in thinking where people are on the one hand so cynical/jaded that they have given up on their government, yet at exactly the same time they believe that it is the government that should provide them with a good job, housing, beer money, etc. I suspect this type of thinking is more prevalent in Europe than it is here. So, young people will riot because they think the government isn't taking care of them. Things are a bit more complicated in the States, some people think the government should feed/house/employ them, but an equal or greater number think the government should just get out of the way.

I agree. I may be using the term wrong, but I see the cognitive dissonance where on one hand people see the government as largely responsible for societies problems and on the other via the government as a means of solving those problems. IMHO, I think this is a result of people not feeling vested in the democratic process. The system just feels broken.




Certainly, I suppose modern technology could well make more inclusive/democratic political processes possible. Let's say we develop a system where every citizen gets to vote on every bill, and even gets to propose legislation, say by petitioning the government. You've already raised the problem that politicians don't educate themselves on every bill they vote on. How would you ensure that citizens voting directly on legislation have bothered to inform themselves? We now live in a culture where money = speech, so the vested interest with the most money has the biggest megaphone. Is there any way to ensure the public hears (much less understands) an objective discussion of the pros and cons of legislation before voting on it? If not, isn't there a risk that such a democracy would just become bread and circuses for the most vocal agitators, without even a middleman to possibly put some brakes on the process (not that they have been doing that).

I very much like the idea of incorporating modern technology into the political process, but personally I would stop short of direct democracy. While at some point in the future direct democracy may be the best way to go, I don't think we are there yet. I can see the merits of a republic, even if more so if that republic tips it's hat to direct democracy.

If you want a modern example of direct democracy you just have to look at the occupy movement. No offense to it's supporters, because I agree with them on a lot of points, but the whole direct democracy bit kind of makes me want to puke.

It's above my pay grade too. I mean, with the demands of modern life, who can really afford to be politically active? Particularly, when it comes to such broad and far reaching reforms. There is a problem though.

For example: At the start of 2012, 40,000 new laws went into effect in the US. The vast majority of those laws made new criminals that did not exist previously. The average American citizen now walks around unknowingly breaking laws everyday, may of which could result in criminal prosecution....it's too much. We need a system where we make good laws...I don't think we've been doing that.