Eradicating Government: Through Direct Consensus Voting

In the 1700s, when the USA was just getting ramped up, the way people decided on what they were going to do collectively as a new nation, was to hold referendum votes on things like whether to go to war, raise taxes, build projects or give public servants funding for this or that purpose to serve the public need. Because it took a long, long time and was very costly, national votes happened very rarely and only for the most critically important national issues - who to elect as leaders, whether to raise taxes, etc. It was not logistically feasible to hold frequent elections, so the only way to make decisions in a prompt, efficient way was to have representatives to make them in behalf of the people and limit elections to once in a great while.
   
I propose that because of electronic voting, we finally have the means to hold frequent, cheap, efficient national votes and therefore we can do away most of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The whole purpose for government is to administrate the Will of the People. We established that with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is a matter of settle law – it is not debatable nor subject to legal dispute. It is a fact.

I submit that because of the creation of electronic voting, which enables the People to vote directly whenever necessary on any number of important issues, we no longer really need most of the apparatus of the Executive, Legislative or even Judicial branches of government. If a decision about the direction of the country or changes that need to be made legally are required, we can simply execute a referendum vote and decide. We don't need representatives any more.

The fact that this is now possible is undisputable. After all, we have been told that the security of the voting system is perfectly fine and that we can be confident that voting electronically is 100% safe, secure and reliable. So why not use it for referendum voting as well as elections for representatives who only really exist in the first place because it was not heretofore possible to hold frequent votes as needed because of cost and logistics.

With direct consensus voting, if we wanted to have a medical insurance system run by the government to replace private insurance, we could simply have put it to a vote. Then we wouldn't have the monstrosity of Obamacare because the People were and still are overwhelmingly against it.

Of course, the government officials and bureaucrats themselves will never voluntarily go along with this – millions of parasitic, pathological vermin have grown fat and arrogant exploiting the representative system of governance to their own personal advantage. So they will have to be swept aside by force – which means that special police powers for the rounding up and rehabilitation of government workers who refuse to go along with the New World Order of direct control of the world without them will have to be established – along with reeducation or internment camps for those terminated militant government workers who cannot adapt to change.

I do not agree that electronic voting is 100% secure. Nor do I agree that:

Quotewe no longer really need most of the apparatus of the Executive, Legislative or even Judicial branches of government. If a decision about the direction of the country or changes that need to be made legally are required, we can simply execute a referendum vote and decide. We don't need representatives any more.

Tac yep. As I said in another thread. That's a pure democracy.

Sounds good in theory.

But in practice, not so much.

http://madison.thefreelibrary.com/

Inevitably in a direct, pure democracy such as proposed by the OP. .

The framers rejected the idea of a direct pure democracy for our government. Because in history, in Athens.

The Birthplace of democracy.

The majority almost always eventually wound up trampling on the rights of the minority.

Not entitlements folks, not privilege's folks.

Their RIGHTS. Like their right to stay alive, kind of rights folks.

It wasn't a logistical problem which caused them to reject that idea. It wasn't some technological limitation that was the reason the framers rejected that idea for our nation

It was because they didn't want that same sort of thing happening in our nation.

Once again, the framers of our Constitutional Republic, got it right. And once again, modern American's get it wrong.

To say nothing of the fact that electronic voting systems are anything but secure. OR accurate.

Every election in which they have been used there are "voting irregularities" where the "vote" the machine spits out.

Is NOT reflective of how the people actually voted. Every election cycle since their inception we have heard and seen proven, stories in the media.

Where it's "I cast my vote for person A, but the machine put it down as Person B.

Yeah America sure needs a system like that, running our nation.

NOT.

The only way we will ever get rid of our Constitutional Republic. In the United States, wether it be to go to a direct pure democracy or a socialist dictatorship.

Will be over the cold, dead lifeless bodies.

Of myself and millions of other Americans.

Why is that?

Because we as Americans have sworn an oath to uphold and defend that document and the government it establishes. And millions of us, take that oath we swore before God, very very very seriously.

That's why.

Quote from: tac on May 05, 2016, 09:26:24 AM
I do not agree that electronic voting is 100% secure. Nor do I agree that: "we no longer really need most of the apparatus of the Executive, Legislative or even Judicial branches of government. If a decision about the direction of the country or changes that need to be made legally are required, we can simply execute a referendum vote and decide. We don't need representatives any more."

May I ask why?

Also, I should admit that I share some of your skepticism. One of the reasons that this movement should be pushed IMO, is to get people discussing the whole subject of the integrity of the voting system. Heretofore, this has been a non-issue. Nobody in the mass media, either right/left/center is discussing this. I think that is deliberate, because something is afoot. The NWO is planning to establish a permanent control over the electronic voting system in order to bring to reality the cynical declaration of Joseph Stalin that, " It is of no importance how people vote. All that has importance is who COUNTS the votes".

In a completely different vein, I do not share the cynicism of some about the US citizens/voters. I think the reason that such a massive portion of the electorate eligible to vote does not participate (on average about 40% of those eligible to vote do not register to vote in every national election cycle) is that they don't believe that their vote has any effect on things. I don't think it's because they are apathetic about the decisions made by government or that they approve of them. It's because they are too disillusioned and depressed to feel good about participating

I think that with direct voting, we would see most of that non-participating 40% voting and also see that many or most of them are far more conservative and sane than the mass media would like to admit.

I am just as cynical as anyone about the government, because I believe that there is something I call the Leadership Paradox* at work in our culture and that direct consensus voting may be the only possible fix.

*The Leadership Paradox is the principle that in our current age, most often those least qualified to administrate responsible, effective, ethical leadership are those who most vigorously and effectively seek to obtain and hold it.

Quote from: daidalos on May 05, 2016, 09:57:00 AM
Tac yep. As I said in another thread. That's a pure democracy.

Sounds good in theory.

But in practice, not so much.

http://madison.thefreelibrary.com/

Inevitably in a direct, pure democracy such as proposed by the OP. Some technological limitation wasn't the reason the framers rejected that idea for our nation.

They rejected the idea of a direct pure democracy for our government. Because in history, in Athen's.

The Birthplace of democracy.

The majority almost always eventually wound up trampling on the rights of the minority.

Not entitlements folks, not privilege's folks.

Their RIGHTS. Like their right to stay alive, kind of rights folks. It wasn't a logistical problem which caused them to reject that idea.

To say nothing of the fact that electronic voting systems are anything but secure. OR accurate.

I did not communicate clearly. I am not proposing pure democracy. I am proposing direct consensus voting on specific issues within a Constitutional Republican framework. It would be a hybrid system where certain issues would be given over to the public for direct approval or disapproval.  I do not know what the specific mechanism would be for that, but it would by necessity have to conform to the Rule of Law and to general Republican principles to preserve that aspect of the Constitution. The only thing that would change is that the Executive and Legislative branches would have the bulk of their responsibility transferred back to the People. Sure, that would mean that sometimes things would likely go toward a more conservative direction and others toward a less conservative direction BUT THAT HAPPENS ALREADY and in fact, has been by the insidious action of the Hegelian Dialectic moved more and more toward the left every year.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 05, 2016, 10:11:45 AM
I did not communicate clearly. I am not proposing pure democracy. I am proposing direct consensus voting on specific issues within a Constitutional Republican framework. It would be a hybrid system where certain issues would be given over to the public for direct approval or disapproval.  I do not know what the specific mechanism would be for that, but it would by necessity have to conform to the Rule of Law and to general Republican principles to preserve that aspect of the Constitution. The only thing that would change is that the Executive and Legislative branches would have the bulk of their responsibility transferred back to the People. Sure, that would mean that sometimes things would likely go toward a more conservative direction and others toward a less conservative direction BUT THAT HAPPENS ALREADY and in fact, has been by the insidious action of the Hegelian Dialectic moved more and more toward the left every year.

You are right, the political spectrum in the U.S. always swings left and then right.

In a direct consensus democracy such as you propose though. Those swings would be much more severe and extreme than they already are.

No the system we have in place already is fine.

The problem is, who some folks keep voting for.

The problem is, who some folks, continue to insist we as American Citizen's continue too support politically.

That's the problem. Not the system we have established.

Late in your OP you said:

QuoteI submit that because of the creation of electronic voting, which enables the People to vote directly whenever necessary on any number of important issues, we no longer really need most of the apparatus of the Executive, Legislative or even Judicial branches of government. If a decision about the direction of the country or changes that need to be made legally are required, we can simply execute a referendum vote and decide. We don't need representatives any more.

Basically what you are proposing is eliminating CONgress from the Checks and Balance that the Constitution provides. We are a Constitutional Republic, always have been. I do concede that CONgress is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the WH, but they are the only stop gap we have before we have a dictatorship.

Quote from: daidalos on May 05, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
You are right, the political spectrum in the U.S. always swings left and then right.

In a direct consensus democracy such as you propose though. Those swings would be much more severe and extreme than they already are.

No the system we have in place already is fine.

The problem is, who some folks keep voting for.

The problem is, who some folks, continue to insist we as American Citizen's continue too support politically.

That's the problem. Not the system we have established.

Well, I see your POV and respect your opinion. I will have to mull it over.

I should probably just say at this point that direct consensus voting as I propose it would not be anything even remotely close to pure democracy. The reason for this is that any issue would have to pass muster with some sort of legal review to ensure that it conforms to the Constitution - perhaps that would be something that could be done by a ( vastly less politicized) judiciary and Legislature. Perhaps issues that pass a preliminary review and qualification vote could then, and only then go up for general decision. It would be the same as n election in the sense that advocates would speak for each side, pro and con and the People would have a period of time to research the issues

The problem that is being addressed is that as it stands now, Legislators and Executive branch officials are usurping the entitlement of the People to make decisions about policy based on distortions of legalities and regulatory authority which are themselves promulgated and legitimized by other government authorities.

I am saying that it would be nice to take something like Obamacare, in which one party voted 100% against, and be able to enact some mechanism where a vote of "no confidence" in the decision could be registered from the general electorate and permit them to override the authority of the government to make the decision.

I furthermore propose that largely and more and more, anything which sends the government in general into vehement condemnation and rejection of something (as such a proposal surely would) must also also have some great merit and entitle it to some serious consideration by the People. 

Quote from: tac on May 05, 2016, 10:33:04 AM
Late in your OP you said:
Basically what you are proposing is eliminating CONgress from the Checks and Balance that the Constitution provides. We are a Constitutional Republic, always have been. I do concede that CONgress is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the WH, but they are the only stop gap we have before we have a dictatorship.

Some of that is irrefutably true without question! But I am making this proposal from the POV that we can safely assume that the entire federal legislative process is utterly and completely FUBAR. Therefore only something that fundamentally eliminates massive government control of the decision-making process would qualify as a reform. It would not have to be absolute or irreversible.

This is just a sketch of something that is now feasible because of technology, not a final draft by any means. Some of the comments in response have been very educational and interesting and I deeply appreciate  your participation in the discussion!!

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 05, 2016, 10:39:35 AM
Well, I see your POV and respect your opinion. I will have to mull it over.

I should probably just say at this point that direct consensus voting as I propose it would not be anything even remotely close to pure democracy. The reason for this is that any issue would have to pass muster with some sort of legal review to ensure that it conforms to the Constitution - perhaps that would be something that could be done by a ( vastly less politicized) judiciary and Legislature. Perhaps issues that pass a preliminary review and qualification vote could then, and only then go up for general decision. It would be the same as n election in the sense that advocates would speak for each side, pro and con and the People would have a period of time to research the issues

The problem that is being addressed is that as it stands now, Legislators and Executive branch officials are usurping the entitlement of the People to make decisions about policy based on distortions of legalities and regulatory authority which are themselves promulgated and legitimized by other government authorities.

I am saying that it would be nice to take something like Obamacare, in which one party voted 100% against, and be able to enact some mechanism where a vote of "no confidence" in the decision could be registered from the general electorate and permit them to override the authority of the government to make the decision.

I furthermore propose that largely and more and more, anything which sends the government in general into vehement condemnation and rejection of something (as such a proposal surely would) must also also have some great merit and entitle it to some serious consideration by the People.

Late For Lunch no problems. I know where you are coming from. I was at that point myself not so long ago.

Luckily for me though. Some of our fellow conservatives here slapped me upside the head and showed me the error of my ways. LOL

J/K

But no seriously I did think exactly the same thing at one point.

I questioned why did the framers institute a Representative Constitutional Republic.

Rather than a direct democracy.

If you'd like to learn more about Athens and the birthplace of democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

And here's a short little piece about, why direct democracy was rejected by the framers.

http://libertyunderfire.org/2010/06/the-founding-fathers-rejected-democracy/

Quote from: daidalos on May 05, 2016, 11:53:41 AM
Late For Lunch no problems. I know where you are coming from. I was at that point myself not so long ago.

Luckily for me though. Some of our fellow conservatives here slapped me upside the head and showed me the error of my ways. LOL

J/K

But no seriously I did think exactly the same thing at one point.

I questioned why did the framers institute a Representative Constitutional Republic.

Rather than a direct democracy.

If you'd like to learn more about Athens and the birthplace of democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

And here's a short little piece about, why direct democracy was rejected by the framers.

http://libertyunderfire.org/2010/06/the-founding-fathers-rejected-democracy/

I am failing here to convey a very central point. I DO NOT FAVOR PURE DEMOCRACY.

What I am proposing is a hybrid system wherein the Will of the People is invoked only in certain exceptional circumstances where there is either gridlock of the legislative or administrative process or the Legislative process is so far removed from the Will of the People that a "no confidence" vote results in the Legislative process being suspended on a case by case basis.

Since Constitutional republican representative governance is ostensibly supposed to enhance the ability of the Will of the People to be exercised ( by ensuring that no political entity interferes with manifesting it) I am proposing something which does not currently exist to prevent ADMINISTRATIVE/BUREAUCRATIC mechanisms from interfering with that process.

If we had some means of having a "no confidence" vote concerning Obamacare, even though most people did not favor turning the Eightball Obama out of office based on Obamacare, they most likely would have (and still would) vote to repeal and replace Obamacare with some other legislation.

That is the focus of this proposal, a case-by-case implementation of an override feature by which the Will of the People is directly administrated, bypassing a dysfunctional federal system which acts to interfere with the Rule of Law and override the Will of the People through trickery, infamy, judicial lethargy (John Roberts' hyper-intellectual Judicial "Slacktivism") or by clever manipulation of legalisms.