On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:23:52 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
Dave Hinz (in ) said:

| The problem is, we can barely get half the people off their asses to
| vote for _president_ once every four years. Not saying it's a bad
| idea, just that as with anything else, a small percentage of the
| population would be making the decisions. And, really, would _you_
| vote on every piece of legislation, or just the few that you
| know/care about?

*Very* worthwhile question! Let's require a majority of registered
voters in favor of a proposition for passage. Still better, let's also
provide the opportunity to vote "no"; and if a 1/3 minority of
participating voters says "no", then the proposition fails.

I'm not seeing the distinction between the two statements above which
you seem to be distinguishing ?

And you're right, I almost certainly would only vote on the issues
that I knew of and cared about. I like the idea that if a politician
wants a particular piece of legislation passed, he/she needs to ensure
that the voters are properly informed and that the legislation is
subjected to a bit of sunshine before it *can* become law.

Well, to some point, in theory at least, we hired these people to do the
homework for us. Not saying it works well, but that was the theory.
I think your proposal is all about improving the "resulution" if you
will of how my own needs and beliefs are met. Instead of one say every
few years based on one or two key issues (OK, with me, one), I'd have
say in as many as I wanted to. I don't see how that'd be bad from a
philosophical standpoint,but might be very tough to implement properly
and efficiently.

We could make a fair start with the golden rule. Hmm, could we codify
"What goes around comes around"? Heh, heh - It just ocurred to me that
legislators who overspend might end up automatically losing all
property and pension rights - betcha spending would be done with
/very/ much more care...

I like the movement to have the land of one of the SCOTUS justices
seized based on his opinion in the recent case. "Hey - better good and
all that. Move."

|| Agreed. Interesting that in all the time humans have been around we
|| haven't managed to produce and implement a fair and just solution
|| all can agree on. I don't think that means it /can't/ be done -
|| perhaps it just calls for a level of social maturity we haven't
|| yet reached. I'm pretty sure we shouldn't stop trying...
|
| It's an iterative process, to be sure. Cyclical, too.

Agreed. Progress does seem to come /so/ slowly.

And sometimes, backwards.