Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Nov 2012 11:37 UTC
In the News "This election won't hinge on technology issues. Just look at prevailing discussions this year at the national level: major candidates have sparred over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the role of government, inane comments on the female body, and to nobody's surprise, the economy. Despite that fact, many decisions will be taken up by the next US president and those in Congress that will affect the world of tech, and by consequence, the real lives of citizens and human beings around the world - from alternative energy, to the use of killer drones, the regulation of wireless spectrum, and policies that aim to control content on the internet. Your chance to vote is just around the corner. Here's what's at stake in tech this election, and how the major candidates could influence our future." Happy voting, American readers. Whatever you pick, please take at least a few minutes to consider that the implications of your choice do not end at the US border.
Thread beginning with comment 541141
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Voting
by LighthouseJ on Tue 6th Nov 2012 14:42 UTC in reply to "Voting"
Member since:

Comments like yours usually sound conspiratorial, but the real quarrel you have is with the 'representative democracy' that the United States has in place.

To go to the other extreme, do you want a direct democracy where the entire populous pours over all of the legislation written and makes all of the votes on various bills?

I think there should be a happy medium to engage the public on more issues on a more regular basis, on an either binding or non-binding tally of what the People decide.
Your other comment about our government representatives doing whatever they want stems from the lack of civic participation in what our government does. The check and balance of voting out the bums based on their vote is diminished these days, so I think engaging the public more often I think would force our representatives to become more responsible by votes that we don't make would be under a bigger microscope.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Voting
by darknexus on Tue 6th Nov 2012 16:04 in reply to "RE: Voting"
darknexus Member since:

Comments like yours usually sound conspiratorial, but the real quarrel you have is with the 'representative democracy' that the United States has in place.

You're absolutely right, because the representative part is long gone. I also have an issue with career politicians, as this concept by its very existence negates good representation. What we have is a system where the politicians' goal is simply to stay in power and to climb higher. The higher they climb, the more money they make and the more they can influence the laws, the more money they make. Essentially, being a representative politician has turned into yet another career, rather than having any pretense of service to the people. This is not dissimilar to the situation in many of the large, organized religions and the clergy that now control them. We've turned our government into a career rather than an extension of the will of the people, and a lot of us here simply do not understand this or refuse to see it. That is my problem with the system. A career government breeds career politicians, and here's the result. It now no longer matters whom you vote for, for the simple reason that their interest is not to support the will of the people, but to get the people to support the will of the government and to bring as many people into said government as possible. This is why our country tries to be the world police. Do you think most of us want that? Trust me on this, we don't, but the career politicians do. More policing, more money. See the connection now?
The system needs to be balanced. At the moment, the power is all on one side, and as a result, the checks and balances that we have are ineffective. The only people who can interfere with the politicians are either the supreme court judges (appointed by said politicians) or other politicians. A direct democracy is out of the question. We are simply too large for that. What I think we should do is, each politician (or group of politicians) submits their plan for their term. What are they going to do, how are they going to do it, why do they wish it. The individuals names would *not* be put on said plan. What we need to do is take away the idea of voting for individuals. We need to be able, in broad terms at least, to vote for the issues or plan we want done. In other words, I'd really like to see a shift away from the individual politician and back to the issues themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 6