New Radical Law called "The True Democracy Act". Proposed by a USA citizen, March 14, 2009, revised March 18, 2009?

Doing this circumvents the entire reason for having a Congress. Senators and representatives entire jobs are deciding whether 1,000 page bills are good or bad. Excuse me if I say, but I don't think that people are going to have much time to read and understand a 1,000 page bill at 6:00 in the night.

And then there are multiple bills to do this with. Secondly, this would be sheer insanity to attempt to gather the votes from a lot of U.S. Citizens, and there would lots of dead people voting, if you know what I mean. Then there is the problem of if the bill fails to pass.It could get debated for a year, passed, not passed by the public, and left dormant for 6 years.

What if it was a bailout? What if it was funding for a war? There are just too many complications, what ifs, and other confounding variables.

The largest problem is that for most laws the people voting would be one of: 1. Political Science Junkies 2. People voting because their Pastor or Priest told them to.3.

People voting because Oprah told them to. I'm not sure that's who I want determining the law of the land.

This would be a great solution if we first divided into 100,000 little countries. Direct democracy doesn't work well with a population over a few thousand. Remember that the Greeks had city states, and they were very small cities compared to modern ones, and only the upper classes could vote.

Our current system is a representative democracy, where citizens elect representatives to vote on laws. The system this describes is a deliberative democracy. The biggest block to this system would be the cumbersome nature of public voting.

Think of the Presidential elections- counting the votes takes a great deal of time and effort. It's expensive and time consuming, especially for small communities who can't afford voting machines. The time to complete a vote would also be difficult.

Absentee ballots need to be available in advance, and for close votes, the country would have to wait for absentee ballots to come in. It could add months to the process. Laws that are time sensitive (like emergency funding) would be impossible.

Scheduling votes would also be difficult- could you have a vote on Christmas? How about during Ramadan? Would they be done on weekdays, or weekends?

The schedule of voting could have huge impacts on the results, and could be manipulated. This idea would be very hard to implement. However, if it had enough public support, it could be passed (it would likely be an amendment, and would require more than a simple law to pass).

In a democracy, any law with enough support can be passed.

There are many reasons NOT to do this... 1. Efficiency. Take the amount of time a bill takes to get through subcommittees, committees, floor debate, filibusters, and voting in BOTH houses - it's already astronomical.

And you want to add thirty days? 2. General lack of public intelligence/caring.

We can't even expect people to make good decisions as to who to make their decisions for them! How do we expect "a simple majority of USA voting citizens" to even take the time to READ the bill, much less understand it?3. Remember how much brouhaha surrounded the procedures and counting for the last election?

Multiply that by the number of bills passed by Congress each year... 4. In Congress, it's easy for each member to make their individual views heard in floor debate. Not so much when the entire American public is involved... 5.

SIX YEARS? ARE YOU CRAZY? Do you know how fast public opinion can change?

I'm sorry, but that sounds like a whole lot of bureaucracy and very little democracy. I don't want to have to vote on every law that is passed. Worse, I don't want laws decided by people who have enough time to review each law and vote on them--that is a full time job (i.

E congressmen and congresswomen) and not something that can be done in our free time.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.