Should House of Representatives be replace by Internet direct representation?

Direct voting (via internet) by registered voters can replace the House of Representatives and be more representative, not as subject to lobbying and bribes.

Huge* unproductive expenditures in election campaigns would be greatly reduced (435 Representatives vs. only 50 Senators who’s terms are three times longer would campaign, and most need not do much as often server many 6 year terms.)
Estimated reduction in election cost is 96.3% - I.e. [(435/2)] / [(435/2) + (50/6)] = 1/[1 + (50/6)(2/435)] = 1/[1 + 50/1305] = [1/(1 + 0.038314)] = 0.963

I.e. almost all the cost of electing the Congress would disappear if only the Senate existed!
Much of a Representative’s time and many of their votes are focused on getting re-elected instead of the country's needs. That is a much greater cost.

As funding bills can not originate in the Senate, “bridges to nowhere” would never be funded and all of the “horse trading pork” exchanged for mutual support between Representative wanting votes for their pet projects, which greatly add to the national debt, would be eliminated. Perhaps spending on defense would be greatly reduced with a legislative cap at only twice as much as any other nation spends with the money save spent on cancer research, etc.

The need for legislative districts is eliminated (Senate remains in DC with 2 members per state). Thus gerrymandering would cease to exist. The cost of making the census (many census data collectors, etc.) would be no more, but less through sampling for other reason may be desirable still.

-------------
* “… Today's {election} races cost more than a million dollars for a House seat …”
Also campaigns are now mainly negative - very destructive. To again quote Wiki:

“…Since congresspersons must advertise heavily on television, this almost always requires so-called negative advertising which smears an opponent's character without focus on issues, and these attack ads are considered by most political operatives as necessary. Negative advertising is seen as effective since "the messages tend to stick."[138] Attack ads are prevalent in most congressional races today.[139] But this has the unintended consequence of souring the public on the political process in general. What's come to describe most congresspersons today is a need to avoid blame.[140] One wrong decision or one damaging television image can mean defeat at the next election which leads to a culture of risk avoidance as well as a need to make policy decisions behind closed-doors[140] along with efforts to concentrate publicity efforts at their home districts. …”

Another fact also from Wiki:
“… In 2006, the average annual pension for retired senators and representatives was $60,972 {and while serving} received a yearly salary of $165,200. {with officers more, e.g. The Speaker of the House of Representatives earns $212,100 annually} Wall Street Journal reported lawmaker trips abroad at taxpayer expense, which included spas, $300-per-night extra unused rooms, and shopping excursions. [175] …”
And that does not include their very generous allowances for employing staff, etc.

Thus I vote, Yes.
Lets get rid of the a physical representation and have direct internet voting by the registered voters, but keep the Senate as it is. The security problems were solved years ago by corporation holding their shareholder votes via the internet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really don't see that happening. I do however see the time when the Representatives can only write the bills but we the people could vote upon whatever they write and can turn it down as it is written to have them either rewrite it or just discard it. They would have to write any bill under 2500 words and so that an 8th grader could understand it as well. That would let them have their jobs as we do need someone to at least write the bills and pass legislation. Not only would these bills be available on the net but also on TV government channel and the newspaper as well so that everyone can read about them. People could vote using the net or phone and have a pin number to use with their social security number to validate who they are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why could not the Senate discuss, and then write all the bills? If the proposed new legislation require funds (above some small amount, perhaps $100,000) then the new directly-voting "House of Representatives" votes to approve or not with a few days allowed for voting. - Quicker and more efficient than current procedures. Then the dollars spent on TV would be more useful arguments, not just "my opponent is a crook" etc. negative campaigns.

Your: "They would have to write any bill under 2500 words and so that an 8th grader could understand it as well. " does not appeal to me. Some things are quite complex and 8th graders don't get to vote anyway. A side effect might be that the level of education improves. Now the rich send their kids to private schools, but with direct voting they would understand it is important to educated all well.

Social security numbers are too well distributed to serve a PINs - Use the ID testing that corporations have used for years to control who votes by internet in the annual meetings etc. (or make new system).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here at least its the public servants are the ones who really write the bills, especially government legislation. Pollies just tell them what they want the bill to do

 

Well it could be either of them but I was considering the amount of Representatives that are in the House as to having more people to add their ideas to any bill then send it to Senate for final approval.

 

Well that is better than in the US where lobbies write the bills. The US has various well organized but sometime conflicting groups via their lobbyists creating the compromise legislation.

For example the pharmaceutical industry (wanting to keep cheaper Canadian drugs out of US) vs. the health insurance industry wanting to only pay for the cheaper Canadian drugs, each giving "disguised bribes" to Representatives for voting their way.

 

I suspect that each Senator gets more than 10,000 Emailed suggestions each month and 1,000 carefully thought out arguments by letter. Ideas is not the problem. Selecting them for the benefit of the country, instead of for your re-election chances in less than two years, is the problem to solve.

 

But...how many Americans want to read through and vote on several pieces of legislation every day? What about people who don't own computers, or don't know how to use them? I thought the whole idea behind representative government was to free the common man up from the responsibility of the daily tasks of running the government.

 

I'd rather replace the House with state legislatures having the ability to vote. I don't really believe in direct democracy, but allowing all the members of state houses to vote online would work.

I'd make the Senate the only "deliberative" body. Only it could propose and debate legislation. After its approval, it could be passed to the states. A provision within the constitution could also provide a framework for approval, say "All members of the legislatures would be required to vote: yes, no or abstain (unless otherwise indisposed) within a time frame from 1 day to two weeks (to be mandated by the Senate)".

This way, the vote comes close to the people, the ability to endlessly block the vote on the state level or drag out debate would not exist. A simple up or down vote would be required and it could all be done using existing technology.

~String

 

Did you read my reply?

 

Ok..so you've covered the people who don't have computers. But the simple fact is...most people don't want to read through and vote on legislation everyday. I know I sure as hell don't want to...and I would guess most people would feel the same.

 

Just as now there are at least 50 to 60 percent of the voters who don't vote. But if given the proper TV coverage and newspaper space there would be at least more interested voters that would be involved then there are now wouldn't you think?

 

We can barely get people out to vote a couple of times a year...and that just involves picking a name. Very few people would be willing to invest the time to read through mind-numbingly boring legislation on daily basis.

 

Sorry to burst bubbles here, but does ANYONE actually expect all those career pols to give up their cushy jobs?? This whole discussion is totally moot because those are the very people that would have to do away with THEMSELVES!

Silly idea, actually. :shrug:

 

All your points are valid, but need,IMHO, comparison with current practice. Perhaps allowing the Senate to impost on taxpayers $100,000 cost or less without sending the proposed bill to the IHoR, ("Internet House of Representative") is too low. I would think so if more than an average of one bill per day had to get approval from the population voting in the IHoR, who cared enough (one way or the other) to read and vote on it.

As for the computer less, they would easily find friend who had one and wanted to be sure their vote was made. Hell currently if you don't have a car etc. either party will give you a ride to the polling place. Also, it may sound undemocratic but someone, who in this day and age doesn't have any ability to use a computer, is probably not the best informed person to be voting. There are internet cafes etc.* where they could vote, etc. So I don't see this as a big problem.

IMHO, part of the US's problem is precisely that J.Q. Voter has dropped his civic duties, transferred the responsibility of making governmental decisions to others. So in practice they often get made by the richest lobbyists. I think it would be OK, for example, for most not to vote on most questions put to the registered voters (at least 50% of them never vote now on anything). On some questions, such as tax money for abortions, many have strong feeling so many would vote. Those on the losing side are going to be unhappy, as they are now, but that is how democracy works, majority rules.

------
* There could still be polling places where the "voting machine" is a computer. Brazil is far advance vs the US. For all of the 19 years I have been here, that is what is in the polling place. Because many older Brazilians can barely read the picture of the candidate comes up just before you confirm that is who you want to vote for. Most don't vote separately for each candidate but just vote for their parties slate (There are at least a dozen major parties and how the congress is run is controlled by their strength in them - so party line voting is common, but it you want to break ranks you can, and machine / computer with pictures helps make sure you are doing what you intended.

The mess in Florida's election, which put GWB in power second time, was largely do to fact many votes were casts exactly the opposite of the voter's intention because of the confusing layout of the paper ballots - I.e. Florida (and many states) used dark age voting technology by Brazilian standards of even a decade ago! There are secure lines of communication from the polls to the computerized tabulation centers and results of elections are known within a few hours after the polls close.

SUMMARY: The House of Representatives was a great idea when it took two weeks of hard riding on horse back to get a vote from Florida but now, in the internet age, we don't need it. Government can be, as discussed in the OP, much cheaper, more representative, less controllable by lobbyist, and without any jerrymandering of representatives districts, etc. more in the OP.

 

Wouldn't the lobbyist still have influence? It would be in the form of TV commercials or other ads...but they wouldn't go away...just switch forms. Rather than trying to influence congressmen, they be trying to sway Joe 6-pack.

It seems to me that special interest groups would wield even more power. Most people are simply too lazy to participate in daily voting...leaving the voting to the extremes.

 

Fine, let them. It is called "free speech."

What would cease is $50,000 "contributions" to those "who vote right" and corporate jets taking congress man's family and friends to Bermuda etc. for the weekend.

I think money given under the table talks louder than TV. Why do you think it easier for "special interest groups" to influence the mass of voters than a few critical congress men?

PS I looked to see who voted how. Strange result when vote total was 5: All the "No voters" have a number at end of the "name" and none of the "Yes voters" do.

 

You left this part out of your response. Your plan seems to completely ignore human nature.

 

I assume "your response" refers to the following exchange:

Billy T replied: "I think money given under the table talks louder than TV. Why do you think it easier for "special interest groups" to influence the mass of voters than a few critical congress men?"

(1) You did not answer my question.
(2) On what grounds do you say "seems to completely ignore human nature"?

I noted that most would not bother (were to lazy, lacking in civic responsibility, etc.) to read or vote on questions that they had little interest in. And I also noted that now more than 50% never vote on anything. Thus I am in no way ignoring human nature.

In fact it is the greed part of human nature that makes Congressmen (and women) take bribes. You are the one ignoring this aspect of human nature, which a change to direct voting would abolish /correct / eliminate paying bribes for "voting right."

Summary I noted most if not all of the important voting aspects of human nature: That many are lazy, don't do their civic duties, have greed than makes them take bribes, etc. - All these important aspects I did not ignore, but you have ignored the effectiveness of bribes in the current system.

 

OH god yes!!! Thank you Billy this thread just gave me an orgasm!

I think we can start out by asking house members to always vote in accordance to their constituency via an open internet system, then eventually as the house member become functionally obsolete we can replace the whole house entirely!