Government by the people. Its the law in USA. Lets make it be that way again.

[BenRayfield]

Originally Posted by INRM

CIA director Leon Panetta got into hot water with Congress, after he revealed an agency program to hunt down and kill terrorists. A recent report from the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations University argues that the CIA didn’t go far enough (.pdf). Instead, it suggests the American government should set up something like a “National Manhunting Agency” to go after jihadists, drug dealers, pirates and other enemies of the state.

I request that the "U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations University" apologise for the freedom they requested to be taken from the people of USA, but I recognize they may have requested it accidentally because of their ignorance of the Constitution of USA.

Their mistake was similar to mistakes made by many other parts of the USA government. Their mistake, which extremely disrespects all 300 million people of USA, was saying that "enemies of the state" are more important to "go after" than "enemies of the people of USA" should be gone after, as the people of USA choose to define who is their enemy and who is not. Don't forget who is your boss, CIA. The people of USA are the boss of the CIA and the boss of every part of the USA government, and I peacefully protest their use of the phrase "enemies of the state" as being more important than "enemies of the people of USA".

For example, if the people of USA (on average) tell the government of USA that "drug dealers" are not important to "go after" then it is the government's obligation to stop going after them. Similarly, if the people of USA prefer that marijuana (for example) should become legal and not taxed at all or restricted in any way, then it would be the government's obligation to cause that to be true also. Similarly, if the people of USA prefer that the government must grow marijuana and bring it to everyones house who wants it, wrap it in the highest quality paper, and light it for whoever wants it, and complement them on how well they smoke it, then (as the Constitution of USA says) the government of USA must do what the people of USA tell it to do. President Obama, when asked if he had ever smoked marijuana, said he did a long time ago, but he does not anymore, and its not a big deal. I thank Obama for his honesty, and I agree its not a big deal. To all people of USA, please do not forget the USA government, by Constitutional authority, is obligated to do what we prefer it to do on any subject and quickly and in a higher priority than any of the governments own goals. Government by the people. Its the law.

[The Don]

"people" are a baying mob who are putty in the hands of the knowing media. A skillful and coordinated press campaign would have the people calling for the death penalty for first time speeding offences.

Here in the UK we see-saw between "Why can't social workers take kids into care before they get hurt" and "Heartless bureacrats ruining lives by needlessly taking children into care" depending on the mood of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

I request that the "U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations University" apologise for the freedom they requested to be taken from the people of USA, but I recognize they may have requested it accidentally because of their ignorance of the Constitution of USA.

Their mistake was similar to mistakes made by many other parts of the USA government. Their mistake, which extremely disrespects all 300 million people of USA, was saying that "enemies of the state" are more important to "go after" than "enemies of the people of USA" should be gone after, as the people of USA choose to define who is their enemy and who is not. Don't forget who is your boss, CIA. The people of USA are the boss of the CIA and the boss of every part of the USA government, and I peacefully protest their use of the phrase "enemies of the state" as being more important than "enemies of the people of USA".

For example, if the people of USA (on average) tell the government of USA that "drug dealers" are not important to "go after" then it is the government's obligation to stop going after them. Similarly, if the people of USA prefer that marijuana (for example) should become legal and not taxed at all or restricted in any way, then it would be the government's obligation to cause that to be true also. Similarly, if the people of USA prefer that the government must grow marijuana and bring it to everyones house who wants it, wrap it in the highest quality paper, and light it for whoever wants it, and complement them on how well they smoke it, then (as the Constitution of USA says) the government of USA must do what the people of USA tell it to do. President Obama, when asked if he had ever smoked marijuana, said he did a long time ago, but he does not anymore, and its not a big deal. I thank Obama for his honesty, and I agree its not a big deal. To all people of USA, please do not forget the USA government, by Constitutional authority, is obligated to do what we prefer it to do on any subject and quickly and in a higher priority than any of the governments own goals. Government by the people. Its the law.

Maybe we could like, you know, elect some people to a parliament or something where they could fight hard for what we want. Darn these dictator presidents!

[BenRayfield]

You're right that government propaganda is a very strong force. It causes deception in peoples' unconscious minds that causes those people to work toward government's goals instead of the peoples' goals on average.

In my opinion, the USA governments lies are patheticly easy to disprove. Their propaganda is built on lies and secrets. Its not hard to choose 1 politician at a time, prove he is a liar, prove it again the next 5 times he tries to get elected for anything, and then he is defeated by peaceful communication and protesting. After that is done a few times, sometimes to important politicians and sometimes to unimportant politicians, every politician will start to fear their own lies so much they will choose not to lie as much. The USA government will have to start taking orders from the people of USA, on average, or be impeached (removed from office for improper behavior). If any politician says even the smallest thing against what I wrote here, I will be on the NEWS and other places of communication saying their name.

I don't take any disrespectful or nonobedient talk from those who work under me. The people of USA are the boss of the USA government. Obey or be impeached.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

In my opinion, the USA governments lies are patheticly easy to disprove.

So they are not lying, right?

BTW, the United States is not a direct democracy.

[BenRayfield]

Quote:

BTW, the United States is not a direct democracy.

That is only because the people of USA do not prefer it to be a direct democracy. That may change, but I recommend the following system instead: For every government department or law, allow people to vote to repeal it, at any time, through an internet voting system built on provably secure and unhackable 50000-bit encryption open-source voting software. Its our choice. This is our country.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

For every government department or law, allow people to vote to repeal it, at any time, through an internet voting system built on provably secure and unhackable 50000-bit encryption open-source voting software. Its our choice. This is our country.

That might be cool. We could revoke the marriages of those opposed to gay marriage.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

That is only because the people of USA do not prefer it to be a direct democracy. That may change, but I recommend the following system instead: For every government department or law, allow people to vote to repeal it, at any time, through an internet voting system built on provably secure and unhackable 50000-bit encryption open-source voting software. Its our choice. This is our country.

No, I like our current system.

[BenRayfield]

Quote:

That might be cool. We could revoke the marriages of those opposed to gay marriage.

Please try not to use your new power for revenge, because, unlike how the USA government is now, those people you take revenge on will have the power to vote bad things for you. When the USA government is forced, by peaceful protesting and threats of impeachment, to say "enemy of the people of USA" instead of "enemy of the state", and to say "People, do you prefer we reduce congresses salary every year the national debt increases?", then an unusual thing happens: the government would evolve toward doing what we say instead of lieing to get votes.

Quote:

No, I like our current system.

Its better to choose for the system to stay the way it is than for it to stay the same because you can not choose, because you may later want to change some other thing about it.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

Please try not to use your new power for revenge, because, unlike how the USA government is now, those people you take revenge on will have the power to vote bad things for you.

It's not revenge, it's justice....because I say so. See the flaw in your logic?

[BenRayfield]

It is a flaw, but it is less flawed than how it is now. Its exactly the reason I recommend that we should be able to repeal laws but not directly vote to create them. Politicians will create laws that tend not to get repealed, after they learn how it works.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

Similarly, if the people of USA prefer that marijuana (for example) should become legal and not taxed at all or restricted in any way, then it would be the government's obligation to cause that to be true also.

So I assume that you feel the government should keep marijuana illegal based on this poll:

Quote:

Fifty-eight percent of Americans say marijuana should be illegal, even after being presented with the idea that the drug could be taxed. Thirty-one percent say it should be legal, while another seven percent say it should be legal if it is taxed and the money goes to projects.

[BenRayfield]

If thats what the people of USA say, it should be the law, but if the people of USA choose to vote again and change their mind on average, that law should quickly change. Unlike how the USA government does things now, I recommend that we allow voting again on anything (optionally and through an easy internet system) at any time the people prefer, without the need to ask the government's permission to vote on things or when to vote.

[INRM]

"Enemy of the State" is a very dangerous term to hear a government start using. It often does not mean the same as "Enemies of the citizens of the United States" but simply enemies of those in power who run the state.

I have a very serious reason to believe that this Manhunting Agency would be used against people who are critical of the government, or question its policies. Either to perform unwarranted surveillance of them or to assassinate them. It has already been publicly stated that this agency would be used against drug-dealers, which is a law enforcement issue. Since this Manhunting Agency would consist of intelligence officials and special-warfare soldiers, it would involve improper use of the intelligence agencies, and would violate posse comitatus and would involve the military in law enforcement operations.


INRM

[BenRayfield]

I'll quote from a news article about George W Bush. Its about how important he thinks "government by the people" is, compared to him staying in office longer:

Quote:

The President noted that as Commander in Chief he had already approved telephone wiretapping without court warrant, incarcerated alleged "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial and, in a February 2002 order, now rescinded, had authorized the armed forces to ignore the Geneva Conventions when "consistent with military necessity," so long as everyone was treated "humanely."

"If I can do all that, I can defer an election," the President said. "Look, as between not voting on time and getting locked up without all those Geneva rules and such, which is worse?"

In a Washington press conference following the President's speech, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out the legal basis for his department's conclusion that the President could postpone the election.

"Legally, it's simple," Mr. Gonzales said. "It depends on what the meaning of 'four years' is.

Quoted from news article: "Bush Postpones 2008 Election" by Stephen Gillers, July 31, 2006. http://thenation.com

[INRM]

BenRayfield,

First of all, if what is said in this quote is true

Isn't that a violation of international law to specifically tell the Armed Forces it's okay to violate the Geneva Convention if it's convenient?

As for him wanting to defer the election, if true, that would confirm a belief a lot of people held that he was looking for a way to stay in office even after his term was up.


INRM

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

I'll quote from a news article about George W Bush. Its about how important he thinks "government by the people" is, compared to him staying in office longer:


Quoted from news article: "Bush Postpones 2008 Election" by Stephen Gillers, July 31, 2006. http://thenation.com

Uh, dude, that "news article" is parody.

You can read it here.

[Sporanox]

Look, your idea is guaranteed to be broken because of one simple rule:

Many people in the United States don't even bother to vote.

That's for elections that are regularly scheduled and given much attention by our press. If we actually have an online referendum system, you'd first be limiting voting access to only those with internet connections available, then limiting the votes to those who actually pay attention to irregular initiatives. In short, a minority would be deciding the laws that govern the entire country, and only they would be aware of the change.

Your problem was that we don't even know all the ordinances on the books. Your proposal would do nothing to correct that deficiency.

[Pantaz]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Uh, dude, that "news article" is parody.

You can read it here.

First time I've seen that story -- It's pretty funny!

[BenRayfield]

Originally Posted by INRM

BenRayfield,

First of all, if what is said in this quote is true

Isn't that a violation of international law to specifically tell the Armed Forces it's okay to violate the Geneva Convention if it's convenient?

As for him wanting to defer the election, if true, that would confirm a belief a lot of people held that he was looking for a way to stay in office even after his term was up.

I don't know much about those subjects.

Originally Posted by WildCat

Uh, dude, that "news article" is parody

Please quote the part of it that makes you think its a parody.

Originally Posted by pantaz

First time I've seen that story -- It's pretty funny!

Please quote the part of it that makes you think its a parody.

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Look, your idea is guaranteed to be broken because of one simple rule:

Many people in the United States don't even bother to vote.

Most people in USA do not bother to sell items at the dollar-store, but amazingly, the dollar store will still sell you the items that average people prefer to buy for a dollar. It does not take a lot of people. The main problem is those in power today have goals that are not similar to the goals of the people of USA on average.

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Your problem was that we don't even know all the ordinances on the books. Your proposal would do nothing to correct that deficiency

You can vote however you want through the internet voting system (that I proposed should be built), but I'll describe my strategy to get it done quickly and accurately the way I prefer: Any law that takes more than 5 minutes for me to read and understand, I vote no. Before that, I'll do a search for certain words, and if laws contain any of those, I would vote no. For example, any laws containing "security" or "tax increase" or "affirmative action" or "terror", I would have my computer automatically vote NO for me. Computers are an amazing invention, able to automate large amounts of work if given your choices in the form of a few logical statements. Your objection is based on having to do the work manually, but if you can not figure it out, you can hire a programmer to do it for you in a few hours, and that would pay for itself in all the freedom and lowered taxes you would get as a result of you being able to choose the laws. Your objections have all been solved. Got any more?

[NWO Sentryman]

Plato warned that "Democracy leads to Anarchy, which is mob rule".

Heads will roll if America goes france 1789, possibly literally.

What wil happen if 50.01% vote to take away the rights of 49.99%?

[Fiona]

How do you propose to actually do any of the things you want done? How much bureaucracy would it take to implement these laws when you change them every 5 minutes? I don't think you could even get the trash uplifted on this system

[Fitter]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

<snip>
Please quote the part of it that makes you think its a parody.
<snip>

You seriously can't figure this out for yourself?

[geni]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

You can vote however you want through the internet voting system (that I proposed should be built), but I'll describe my strategy to get it done quickly and accurately the way I prefer: Any law that takes more than 5 minutes for me to read and understand, I vote no.

Which will result in tax loopholes the size of a small planet and no effective way to control toxic chemicals. It would also make statue repeal bills problematical.

Quote:

Before that, I'll do a search for certain words, and if laws contain any of those, I would vote no. For example, any laws containing "security" or "tax increase" or "affirmative action" or "terror", I would have my computer automatically vote NO for me.

Errr those are not the kind of words that appear in laws. You've also risk some interesting side effects such as opposing laws to outlaw stalking or try and apply some standards to bouncers.

Quote:

Computers are an amazing invention, able to automate large amounts of work if given your choices in the form of a few logical statements.

This aproach is generaly felt to be partialy responcible for the stock market crash in the 80s.

Quote:

Your objection is based on having to do the work manually, but if you can not figure it out, you can hire a programmer to do it for you in a few hours,

You can't taylorize the legal system.

Quote:

and that would pay for itself in all the freedom and lowered taxes you would get as a result of you being able to choose the laws.

Errr dirrect democracy you don't chose the laws. Whoever puts together the largest mob does that. This is well understood. The Engineering of Consent was published in 1947. Edward L. Bernays great PR guy. Managed to tie smokeing into the women's lib movement amoung other things.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Plato warned that "Democracy leads to Anarchy, which is mob rule".

Heads will roll if America goes france 1789, possibly literally.

What wil happen if 50.01% vote to take away the rights of 49.99%?

That's why we have a Constitution. It takes 2/3 or 3/4 of the people to take away the rights of the remainder

[Fiona]

Not on the system proposed: after all that would be to interfere with the sovereignity of the vote. Nope: the constitution has to go. It is clearly oppressive

[Slayhamlet]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

Please quote the part of it that makes you think its a parody.

Well, besides the obviously satirical content of the article itself, pay attention to the dates:

Quote:

Bush Postpones 2008 Election

by STEPHEN GILLERS

This article appeared in the August 14, 2006 edition of The Nation.
July 31, 2006

Cites Constitutional Power to Protect Nation's Security

WHAT DID 'FOUR YEARS' MEAN IN 1789?

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2008. President Bush, citing his authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces...

Not much of a critical thinker, are ya?

[sugarb]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

If thats what the people of USA say, it should be the law, but if the people of USA choose to vote again and change their mind on average, that law should quickly change. Unlike how the USA government does things now, I recommend that we allow voting again on anything (optionally and through an easy internet system) at any time the people prefer, without the need to ask the government's permission to vote on things or when to vote.

All your plan would achieve is more election fraud, and a greater presence of special interest groups. More money funneling into what would become an even more corrupt system.

If people want to vote, they know how to do it. If they don't like a law, they know how to start petitions and work on repealing it.

[BenRayfield]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Plato warned that "Democracy leads to Anarchy, which is mob rule".

There are many kinds of "democracy". Which one?

The one I'm recommending is the same as what we have now except you get to vote yes or no on every existing law, and a lot of yes and a smaller amount of no would repeal it. There are still a few details to work out, but the system would have to be simple.

Quote:

What wil happen if 50.01% vote to take away the rights of 49.99%?

For some strange reason, most people can not get the idea of "half" or "50 percent" out of their heads when they try to think about voting. Theres much better ways to do voting. You said theres problems with the 50 percent idea, so you must think its a bad idea.

Some of these voting systems work much better, as tested by groups of people and simulations in many combinations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

If you do not find any better voting systems there than the USA voting system is today, I will interpret that as proof you did not read and/or understand it. Its a proven area of science.

[geni]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

There are many kinds of "democracy". Which one?

The one I'm recommending is the same as what we have now except you get to vote yes or no on every existing law, and a lot of yes and a smaller amount of no would repeal it. There are still a few details to work out, but the system would have to be simple.

Can't be simple. For example laws about how the likes of Phosgene and 1,5-dichloro-3-thiapentane should be handled are by defintion going to be complex because it's a complex area.

Quote:

For some strange reason, most people can not get the idea of "half" or "50 percent" out of their heads when they try to think about voting. Theres much better ways to do voting. You said theres problems with the 50 percent idea, so you must think its a bad idea.

All systems of voting that produce the same result every time you count the vote are gameable.

Quote:

Some of these voting systems work much better, as tested by groups of people and simulations in many combinations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Heh and then you link to wikipedia. As wikipedia found out the hard way such things do not scale too well.

[INRM]

Sporanox,

I don't think it would be a good idea to have a voting system that would hurt people without internet access


BenRayfield,

What kind of tests (either including people or simulations) were done regarding collective intelligence pertaining to voting?

[BenRayfield]

George W Bush and voting systems are only 2 small parts of the main subject of
this thread.

If the few webpages that claim the Bush news article are fake, are correct, then
it still does not matter, because Bush did much worse things in other areas of
government, and that is why people would think such a news article is true,
because it is the kind of thing Bush did.

Enough about Bush. This thread is about impeaching (removing from office for improper behavior) every high-level
member of the USA government that does not work toward "government by the
people" and start doing what the people of USA (on average) tell them to do
(government by the people). This thread is also about smaller things that could work toward that.

Lets not talk too much about voting systems before we have a way to cause a voting system to start being used. Its more effective to start by reducing the number of lies politicians tell, which can most effectively be done by proving that they lied repeatedly until they can not get a job in any government office for years, so other politicians will see what happens when they lie.

Quote:

I don't think it would be a good idea to have a voting system that would hurt people without internet access

There are computers at libraries. Unlike normal elections where everybody goes near the same time and waits in line, continuous voting can be done any time, so the computers would probably be available when you wanted them. To solve the problem of some people using computers more often than others, you could give everybody the same amount of "influence" to distribute to whatever choices are available, and if a person does not have time to choose many things, a larger amount could be put on those few they choose, like buying 3 good things or 10 lesser valued things with the same money. Theres many ways to do voting systems, and thats not the main subject of this thread, which is to cause the USA government to do what the people of USA tell it to do.

Originally Posted by geni

Can't be simple. For example laws about how the likes of Phosgene and 1,5-dichloro-3-thiapentane should be handled are by defintion going to be complex because it's a complex area.

The voting system should be simple. The laws don't have to be.

Originally Posted by geni

All systems of voting that produce the same result every time you count the vote are gameable.

Lets choose one thats less "gameable". The one we have now is so much flawed that people use the "vote for" box as a "vote against" box. Its not being used the way it was designed to work because its badly designed, and it converges to 2 partys that are very similar.

Quote:

Heh and then you link to wikipedia. As wikipedia found out the hard way such things do not scale too well

If Wikipedia failed at something, then probably Wikipedia was not skilled enough at that thing. Most things that fail in science are built the right way later.

Originally Posted by INRM

What kind of tests (either including people or simulations) were done regarding collective intelligence pertaining to voting?

Collective-intelligence is too general. I should have given this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

Originally Posted by sugarb

All your plan would achieve is more election fraud, and a greater presence of special interest groups. More money funneling into what would become an even more corrupt system.

The only way to have more "special interest groups" would be to have 1 political party instead of 2, that have more than 1 percent chance of winning.

Quote:

If people want to vote, they know how to do it. If they don't like a law, they know how to start petitions and work on repealing it.

How is that related to changing what the the USA government does? I've never seen voting make more than small changes. I'm talking about practical changes, not the kind you talk about the next day then forget, which is what the current system does. If you were not watching television of asking about it, you might not know an election happened at all. It doesnt change much.

This is one of the best ways, if it could be accomplished, to cause change in the USA government: every politician starts doing what the people of USA say or we impeach them out of office quickly. Say it to them. It will work if enough people say it.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

If the few webpages that claim the Bush news article are fake, are correct, then it still does not matter...

Okay, the true believer mentality surfaces.

Look here's proof...
Oh, if it's fake it doesn't matter...

Please move this thread to the paranormal or conspiracy section.

[BenRayfield]

When I quoted that thing about Bush, I had read the page it was on. I don't normally search to see what is linking to news articles. When I said it doesnt matter, I meant Bush is not relevant to this thread and was only an example. I did not mean the fakeness or realness does not matter.

[Hokulele]

Bread and circuses. Whee!

[Pantaz]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

Please quote the part of it that makes you think its [sic] a parody.

Okey dokey...

In a speech during a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he celebrated the summer solstice with the troops...

Simply the idea of the President "celebrating" Summer Solstice sounds goofy, at least to me.

Several of the quotes attributed to President Bush are just silly. For example:

"I'm President because of an election, sort of."

"If I can do all that, I can defer an election," the President said. "Look, as between not voting on time and getting locked up without all those Geneva rules and such, which is worse?"

Do you honestly believe a sitting President would say such things? I know Bush uttered some whoppers during his term, but geez.

The quotes attributed to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are even more ridiculous:

"Legally, it's simple," Mr. Gonzales said. "It depends on what the meaning of 'four years' is." (An obvious jab at President Clinton's questioning the definition of "is".) "The Constitution says the President 'shall hold his office during the term of four years.' It does not say 'only four years' or 'four years and not a day more.' The Framers intended 'four years' to be a preference, not a rigid number. We should not take it literally any more than the words 'hold his office' means no woman can be President. A woman is running now."

"Time meant something different in 1789," Mr. Gonzales added. "This was before airline schedules and self-winding watches. People didn't run their lives by the clock. Many Americans didn't have clocks."

I especially like the quote attributed to Senator Specter:

He vowed to "hold hearings following the day that should have been election day if I am chairman of the committee at that time. Unfortunately, we're backlogged on judicial nominations at the moment, and then there's the summer recess. People have plans and nonrefundable tickets."

Yeah, the President is usurping the Constitution, but we don't want to inconvenience anybody's vacation.

Finally, just to cover the bases -- According to the White House archives, the President was at the White House on June 20, 2008 (date of Summer Solstice) for a press conference on the subjects of foreign intelligence and funding for troops. Kind of difficult to be in two places at once. (Do I also have to mention that Iraq is 6000 miles away and eight hours ahead of Washington D.C.?)

[geni]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

The voting system should be simple. The laws don't have to be.

"Any law that takes more than 5 minutes for me to read and understand, I vote no."

Quote:

Lets choose one thats less "gameable".

Can't. As soon as you limit something to a straight yea or nay you are limited to FPTP voting or systems that don't produce the same result every time you count the votes.

Quote:

The one we have now is so much flawed that people use the "vote for" box as a "vote against" box. Its not being used the way it was designed to work because its badly designed, and it converges to 2 partys that are very similar.

Systems such as STV plus a range of varations that deal with the cloning problem exist. Still gameable.

Quote:

If Wikipedia failed at something, then probably Wikipedia was not skilled enough at that thing.

Nope. It's an entirely predictable result from Dunbar's number.

Quote:

Most things that fail in science are built the right way later.

Um no. the vast majorty of theories that fail continue to fail.

Quote:

Collective-intelligence is too general. I should have given this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

Not really relivant since they are all designed to deal with the case where there are more than two options on the ballot. Not something that can ever happen under your system.

Quote:

The only way to have more "special interest groups" would be to have 1 political party instead of 2, that have more than 1 percent chance of winning.

False.

Quote:

How is that related to changing what the the USA government does? I've never seen voting make more than small changes.

I have. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia for example.

Quote:

I'm talking about practical changes, not the kind you talk about the next day then forget, which is what the current system does. If you were not watching television of asking about it, you might not know an election happened at all. It doesnt change much.

At the present time there is little desire amoung the general US population for large scale changes. Or at least changes they agree on.

Quote:

This is one of the best ways, if it could be accomplished, to cause change in the USA government: every politician starts doing what the people of USA say or we impeach them out of office quickly. Say it to them. It will work if enough people say it.

How's that aproach working out in California?

The people of USA say many things. Much of them contradictory. Makes it a bit hard to do what the people of USA want to do.

[Sporanox]

The fact that you would script a computer to automatically vote "no" on all national security matters tells me all I need to know about your ideas. :/

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by BenRayfield

I'll quote from a news article about George W Bush. Its about how important he thinks "government by the people" is, compared to him staying in office longer:

Quoted from news article: "Bush Postpones 2008 Election" by Stephen Gillers, July 31, 2006. http://thenation.com

Hi. Looks like your castle is built on sand. Were you around in 2007 and 2008 for the primaries and the election that took place?

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by The Don

"people" are a baying mob who are putty in the hands of the knowing media.

Only when they seem to support something one dislikes.

When public opinion polls support something one likes, well, then, it is obvious proof the great wisdom of the American people had spoken against the ridiculous ideas of the folks from the other political party.