Bitcoin Forum

Do you think direct democracy in the US (referendum etc) would be a good idea or do you think the party system (Hillary, Trump etc) is better?

Do you mean proportional representation, or the sham we have in the UK?

If a referendum is mandatory for any change in a law or constitution. If citizens get more votes, would it be a good thing?

A good referendum for US is: Do you want the nationalization of FED?

There are three places for the U.S. government in America:
1. To oversee the court activities in court cases. This doesn't include to find defendants guilty or innocent. It only includes overseeing that the court acts logically and civilly in its operation.
2. To oversee corporations and other artificial entities so that they don't harm the people.
3. To protect the nation from attack.

That's it. Democracy and other things should not even play into the picture.

Let the States and local governments handle what goes on locally.

8)

Maybe it should be ancient greece-like polis democracy?

WTF PEOPLE????

There is only one answer to that for God's sake!!!! It's YES

The question Op is asking is basically:
"do you prefer to vote yourself and propose laws and chose which should be applied or to elect someone who will decide for you?"

Direct democracy is the only kind of democracy. Representative democracy is no longer needed, we can propose and vote for laws ourself now, why voting for other people, can be Trump Hilary or whoever the fuck you want, why voting for them to take decision for you??? We should all make a fucking revolution until we get the right to decide ourselves!!!

I think Direct democracy would never work, That implies every single issue going up for vote maybe a third party could win, but never does because the voters don't vote for them.

Issues could be yes/no based instead of party based, solves the third party issue.

In my opinion, the even more important question would be: Do you trust the average american to make decision for the n°1 military power in the world ?

I would trust very few population for a direct democracy.

Yes but, look at Brexit. The vote split was 17410742 to 16141241. This means that a whopping 16 million+ people will have to obey the wishes of a slightly larger majority, less than 17.5 million. Who is right?

So, do you trust the handful in the U.S. government to be able to make right decisions for 330 million? Create wars for us all over the world just so that the handful have an excuse to kill off our young men and women in the military, all the while making $billions for themselves while the rest of us live in near poverty.

With communications and transportation the way they are, don't need democracy OR the thing that we have presently. Get rid of government except to maintain order in the courts. Let the people be free except when they harm other people, and let the jury decide who is the guilty party based on the facts. Dump the rest of the stupid government that is raping and plundering us.

8)

But you trust fucking politicians who fucked you for decades? Yeah makes much more sense...

Direct democracy for the whole world!

If only...
We could split the world into the different kind of population and I wouldn't have to bear with cocitizens like you ^^

Hey. You're on welfare. Eat and LIKE it.    8)

Who do you guys trust to make decisions for the n°1 military power in the world ? 

Yes, this is what I'm asking

What needs to happen is someone like a billionaire to step up outside from the donaldtrump type folks.

Who paved their grind like markcuban who is aware how politics goes, and lay a foundation down for a third party to oversight votes that and many other things how laws are passed.

This is a false dichonomy. There are plenty of possible systems requiering some kind of consensus between the people and the politicians.
Do you think people will agree on taxes increases or healthcare reduction? If the people is not able to do this kind of decisions a direct democracy is not possible. That's why I am saying that I would trust very few populations for a direct democracy system. 

Thousands of examples show that people are more than willing to pay tax. If they know where the money goes and have some control on it that's all.

The U.S. is too big population-wise for direct democracy. Rather, dismantle the federal Government, and let the States have direct democracy individually. And if a State becomes too large, let it be done county by county.

8)

Billionaires already have two parties. The democratic party and the republican party. Why would they need a third?

 to me, direct democracy is the best of all . because society is powerful enough to legislate. if general assembly isnt powerful to legislate, society can do it properly for that reason    parliamentary democracy  has to be choosen for sure..

I don't think that direct democracy is good idea.
We can see it through many recent events.
In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking.
They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants.
Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum.
Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise.
They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.

Yeah of course politicians showed they are much more effective and reliable at making hard decisions ><

Maybe people in UK voted like shit because they were angry and not used to vote for important subject. Direct democracy should be put in place and learned by the people. With time they'd learn to make careful long term decisions, knowing their vote will be important contrary to what's currently happening. (what was the last time you voted and it was important?)

I like the idea of direct democracy. And other forms of it like liquid democracy for example. But there is some reason in what he said. Many people will never make informed decisions. Maybe they won't have time to look into some issues, or energy, or interest. And propaganda and fear mongering work well. Would that be better than what politicians are doing now anyway? Probably. But what would really help is transforming the economic system. Incentivize cooperatives. Maybe use codetermination. Consider universal basic income. Etc. This would help more people have the time and the conditions to participate in the political system.

And what is wrong with the emotions?

Emotions are only valid in the moment and don't take into account rational thoughts. A decision like this cannot be taken with emotions.
Emotions are like calling an ex-girlfriend at 4am while drunk. On the moment it seems right, but you will regret it later.

The emotions are mutual.

People often take wrong decisions being emotional in such moment where rationality would be more useful. Whereas the politicians or other such qualified personnel can think bilaterally that would one way or the other lead to prosperity and success.

The Vision
A world where every organic human is individually sovereign, supported and abundant.

Check out "Natual Law Egg"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvrJDyC1sww

Natural Law Egg Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC00ZPpGmrNUCfPrO_7bdAFA

Website
http://www.naturallawegg.com/

The illuminati controls both the party system [Hillary, Trump] and the direct democracy to a certain degree, so the outcome remains the same whichever method you choose.

The jews control the party system but they dont control the direct democracy.

The evil jews as always. If they really control the two party system wouldn't they choose sanders instead of hillary or something? Or is he a renegade? Or part of some conspiracy to hide their power or intentions?

I do not think that direct elections are a good idea, just by the fact that the pure exercise of democracy does not work.

The idea that a simple majority decision of the people (+ 50%) is a democratic exercise has been overtaken by the current dimension of the concept of democracy, in which all need to feel represented.

If the exercise of democracy was simply the decision-making of the majority, most present in a room could decide that it is okay to beat up one of those present.

Well they could. But recognizing that could happen to anyone constitutions were set up. Sets of basic rights and rules that inform a lot of decisions. And are harder to change. Direct democracy could have the same framework. See the case of countries that rely more on referendums like switzerland for example. Not perfect. But what better options are there than democracy?