Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!nbires!isis!jay
From: jay@isis.UUCP (Jay)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: On Democracy: A Plan to Implement a Practical Modern Democracy
Message-ID: <357@isis.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 12:09:36 EST
Article-I.D.: isis.357
Posted: Wed Feb 26 12:09:36 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 03:42:33 EST
References: <689@sftig.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Denver Math and Computer Science
Lines: 113
Xref: watmath net.politics:13632 net.legal:2997


In <689@sftig.UUCP>, jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) writes several things I must
pick a bone with:

>>> Good article. I think the fundamental problem of establishing
>>> a political system which is not corrupt is sometimes glossed
>>> over. I claim that it is extremely difficult to implement a
>>> non-corrupt democratic system....
>
> 	Our present republican form of government is an an excellent starting
> point from which we could evolve a true democracy for which the following
> changes would be necessary:
> 
> Judiciary Branch:
> 
> 	This branch could remain essentially as it is, except that all federal
> judges and all members of the Supreme Court would be directly elected by the
> people.

	Certainly.  And soon, we have judges making decisions in a manner which
will assure their re-election, and not in a manner which at least "attempts"
to balance equities in each case.  That is a wonderful improvement!  We
end up with a body that we call "Congress, Mark II".  The point of an unelected
judiciary is to have at least one body of our tripartite government FREE from
the political expediency that so plagues the decisions of the remaining two
branches.  Haven't you heard enough rhetoric already from Congress and the
President?  It's fine want to have a safety valve for BAD judges.  But be
careful how you design it.  In Colorado, we allow the Gov. to appoint judges,
but the judges have "terms" of service, at the end of which that judges name
is placed on a ballot, and voters are asked whether that judge should be
retained.  I don't know a SINGLE PERSON who has any IDEA of the way to vote
on these men!  For such a system to work, somebody must be willing to pay the
cost of informing the public OBJECTIVELY (tough to do - somebody's friend has
always "lost" a case - in a case, there is !always! a loser).

> Executive Branch:
> 
> 	This branch could remain essentially the same, except that the
> President would only be allowed to use his veto power three times during
> a single term of office. Later this could be modified to allow no vetoes
> of laws passed by the people. The President's main function would be to
> execute the law and not make the law as the name of this branch implies.

	Sure.  Then a democratic/republican controlled congress sends up a
few bills sure to be vetoed in the first couple years forcing the hand of
the republican/democratic (respectively) president, then sends up the ones
they REALLY want passed.  What's the matter pal?  Are you having trouble
with the "checks and balances" idea?  Isn't that idea itself designed to
help curb the "corruption" of power?

> Legislative Branch:
> 
> 	The present structure of Congress could remain, but members of Congress
> would have no voting power other than as an ordinary citizens...
> ... Eventually the Congressmen would
> mostly function as advocates of various bills which they would explain and
> argue for in the national communications media...
> ... They would also occupy themselves with drawing up legislation
> requested by various groups among their constituents who petition for a certain
> type of bill to be composed.

	Ok.  Now we get to the basic fallacy in your argument.  In order to
demonstrate your problem, let me ask you a question.  Do your parents, wife,
brothers, or sisters read mostly the headlines, and listen to a bit of the
news, but it seems as if you are always the one who has the most information
on a given political topic?  Probably so.  Now ask yourself just how "fully
informed" you think the electorate is.  Have you ever taken the time
YOURSELF to go check out the text of a bill, and fully investigate the pros
and cons of that bill?  AND THEN DONE IT FOR EVERY BILL SUBMITTED!?!
Probably not.  And you are an activist!  Just think of the hordes of people
out there who "don't get involved in politics much", other than try to
figure out once every couple of years who "stands" for what.  (Now the
bomb).  And you want these (read "uninformed, uninterested, ...") people to
shape our country's future???????  REALLY?????  I'm for accountability, but
most of the people I know have so little idea what the big picture is really
about that I shudder to think what this country would be like if the masses
effecively 'voted' on each issue, using the glossy, headline opinions of the
local/national political 'commentators'.

> 	Groups of citzens would also have the power of composing their own
        ^^^^^^ (read "lobbies" - don't we already have these?  See net.legal
flames on U of Oregon/... PIRG's.

> bills to be presented to the electorate if a certain minimum number of
> signatures are collected for that bill...
> 	The process of obtaining signatures and voting on specific bills could
> be automated and collected through the telephone network during late night
> hours (12 midnight to 6 AM) using encrypted passwords for identification.
> The price of computer equipment for the home can be expected to fall steadily
> because of recent discoveries by scientists in the semiconductor industry.

	Getting bills submitted to congress has never been a problem.  Find
a lobby, and submit a bill.  It's as easy as that.

> 	Of course, none of the above is written in stone and can be adapted
> as needs require. I'm suggesting this plan as a starting point. The guiding
> priciple should be the return of lawmaking powers to the people.

	(Hear the bomb explode).  The people already have lawmaking powers
indirectly, and not to disparage the intelligence of the american people, I
don't think any of us is in a position to do anything except designate which
of us is going to be responsible for getting all the facts, and choosing the
best course.  Yes, I think Archie Bunker really lives, and I'm scared of his
politics.  We as an electorate don't have sufficient time to do the work
it would take to make sufficiently informed decisions.  Just look at the way
your work organization operates - there has to be a hierarchy - somebody has
to be there to balance the detail supplied by the whole.

	Our system may have a few bad apples, but let's not throw out the
whole barrel.

					Jay Batson
					Friend of representative democracy