Pedantically, what we have in a Congress or a Parliament is trustees. They exercise but do not own the power.

> It's my understanding that the reason it was created is because technically it was too difficult to allow everyone to vote on every law.

It was created that way to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

- Federalist No. 10.

Think of it as defence in depth. Do you pin all your security hopes in file permissions? Of course not: you demand randomised address layout, auditing tools and so on and so forth.

In short, you want defence in depth. Representative democracy is a defence against majoritarianism.

> I'm saying: eliminate Congress. Allow people to vote directly on all bills.

Who will write these bills? How will they be proposed? Is there a minimum number of sponsors required, if so, how many? How do bills lapse? How are they amended during discussion?

Well, we in Washington State have some experience on these things, as does California with the initiative process.

Who will write the bills? Tim Eyman, Industry Groups, Costco, and other Lobbying Groups.

Who will get sponsors? Probably the same. They'll probably pay for it. The same forces that pay for lobbyists will pour into the direct democracy process, like they've taken the initiatives.

What will we get from it? A bunch of bills, all looking for no taxes, no gay marriage, and a pony. Meanwhile, the important stuff will quietly get looted by People With Lawyers who now have no more oversight.

Anyone who lives in Washington and California knows the contradictory results you get from this. If you ask the people "hey, do you want stuff?" they vote "yes, we want stuff". If you ask people "hey, do you want to pay for it" they vote "no, we don't want to pay for it".

Or <Insert Foreign Power>. E.g. here's a look at the contributions by state from California's prop 8: http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/ - about 29% of the overall funding came from out of state.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, because you give realistic objections to the simplistic 'solutions' being proposed. It's easy to be 'contra' something, but it's juvenile to be against something without have a better alternative.

I'm saddened to see he's being down-voted. His arguments are rational and sophisticated. I think people are just disagreeing and that's not a good reason to down-vote.

That said, I down-voted you. Don't reduce this argument to name calling. People are voting up my arguments; you seem to be in the minority in not finding the alternative I'm suggesting to be better. That's fine. I wouldn't belittle you for it.

You're not suggesting an alternative, well maybe in the most abstract sense, but in your post several levels up from here there is not even a hint at how to address even just the most obvious flaws in letting people vote for each bill. There's no 'argument' made, just a cry for revolution - of the type that is very common amongst high school and undergraduate students; rising from a simplistic world view that fails to recognize that there is a reason why we've some to the situation where we are now, and that radical, sudden changes very seldom lead to the outcomes that they were designed to lead to. 'Juvenile' was not name calling; it's an (albeit unqualified and broad-stroked) description, or maybe rather 'characterization', of the argument and the context that lead to it.

There are over 13,000 full-time lobbyists for the 535 representatives in Washington, and their only job is, when legislation goes the way of the public and not the way of their sponsors, to use their financial muscle to bribe a different outcome. Despite decades of the public electing officials who say they'll fight it, it has only grown worse. You don't seem to have valid alternatives other than to be deeply shocked at the notion of changing it.

So I don't need to explain myself to you. I don't need to go into details. I don't need to get your permission. None of us do. You had decades; your turn is up.

The future will see open government and direct democracy via the internet as the obvious, logical next step of politics. The internet has transformed nearly every industry -- and now it's simply time to consider transforming politics. And those students, radicals and "juveniles" who are launching it, won't care what you think. You had your chance. You fucked up. Now it's our turn, whether you like it or not.

Huh? Did you even read any of my previous posts? I don't care about how 'the internet will transform politics', and of course the current process is suboptimal, but those discussions are so repetitive boring and trite that I really can't be bothered with it. Nor did I ever try to. I was merely pointing out that your 'argument' isn't an argument in the honest intellectual sense of the word, it's just a cascade of slogans, and at first I thought it was going to be covered with a thin veil of content, but at least now you acknowledge that you're not interested in that and that you prefer to retreat to spouting empty rhetoric.

Of course you don't need my permission, why would I care, I don't even know you. I just thought that you were debating on content, and was annoyed that the one person who was providing sound reasoning was being downvoted for it.

Anyway, good luck with your revolution, be sure to post back when you're done.

By 'you', I mean everyone who is satisfied with how things are.

What I'm saying is there are 13,000 full-time employees of rich clients, each representing a bus-load of money, whose job it is to stop what people want if it conflicts with what their wealthy sponsors want. That system cannot stand. It is rotten to the core.

I'm telling you that it's not about us or the people on HN. Politics have been gamed and the people know it, and they will change it. The internet has revamped industry after industry; politics is next. You can call it revolution. You may think I'm crazy and extreme. But I (and others) see something disastrously broken and are willing to use modern technology to fix it.

Wow, you really need to read history and learn a bit about mob behavior.

No, you need to read history and learn about the success of democracies, that only third-world countries now are not democracies -- it's been that successful, and that all I'm suggesting is that instead of electing a Michelle Bachmann to vote on the laws, you can skip her and vote directly.

What on earth makes you think that direct democracy will eliminate the efforts of lobbyists? The money will just get redirected toward news and information outlets, because nobody will actually read the bills they are voting on.

As long as voting costs nothing, and the work comes from someone else, nobody is going to take it seriously.

Instead, attach the voter's name to the bill, as either yay, nay, or abstain. When their position is proven wrong, fine them to cover the damages their mistaken choice cost.

As is, voting is unjust. It leads to abominations like the draft.

No need to cry for me, the tide of votes seems to be turning.

I think you are right to object right now, but with time mindsets will change. Each new generation moving closer and closer to direct democracy.

Technologically it's already possible.

> Who will write these bills? How will they be proposed? Is there a minimum number of sponsors required, if so, how many? How do bills lapse? How are they amended during discussion?

Do you think this sort of thing makes you clever? In every idea there are implementation details. What's your point?

Unless you're saying that these things will somehow be radically harder under the proposed system, and if so say how, it doesn't need saying.

> Representative democracy is a defence against majoritarianism.

No, representative democracy is often proposed as a defense for such.

We can routinely see our politicians playing to the masses so obviously if it works it's only in a round-about fashion.