Should the State of California Adopt a Republican Parliamentary System

[Scam of God]

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

[Scam of God]

Direct democracy isn't necessarily a good thing.

It's the fullest possible application of the "one-man, one-vote" principle and liberal individualism more generally, and, if administrated correctly, vastly superior to representative systems, which almost always tend to get stymied in partisanship and factionalism. I have a very specific plan to implement it, moreover, which I am positive is superior to the one presently established in America

[Scam of God]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

Watch here.

Each territory/township of a certain size is given a server with fully proxy admission. Each individual in that territory/township is given a randomly-generated password that logs them into the voting booth, hidden behind a proxy so as to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Each territory/township votes for moderators who regulate what legislation passes through the booth, serving as a check against populist sentiment. Using a Wiki/sandbox format, each individual is capable of writing their own legislation, which, provided it meets certain requirements, the moderators then pass on to be voted on. Thus there is a horizontal, rather than vertical, structure of checks-and-balances.

[Scam of God]

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

We already tried this direct democracy thing. It didn't work out so well. Thanks to direct democracy, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the legislatur eto pass a budget, but putting bigotry into the Constitution only takes a simple majority of those who bother to show up for a given election. Prop. 13 benefits the old at the expense of the young. The list of failed Propositions goes on and on.

The problem with the current structure in California isn't that individuals are able to submit legislation for the vote, but that there is no serious moderation of voter-initiated legislation by elected officials competent in their area of expertise.

[Scam of God]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

Watch here.

Each territory/township of a certain size is given a server with fully proxy admission. Each individual in that territory/township is given a randomly-generated password that logs them into the voting booth, hidden behind a proxy so as to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Each territory/township votes for moderators who regulate what legislation passes through the booth, serving as a check against populist sentiment. Using a Wiki/sandbox format, each individual is capable of writing their own legislation, which, provided it meets certain requirements, the moderators then pass on to be voted on. Thus there is a horizontal, rather than vertical, structure of checks-and-balances.

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

We already tried this direct democracy thing. It didn't work out so well. Thanks to direct democracy, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the legislatur eto pass a budget, but putting bigotry into the Constitution only takes a simple majority of those who bother to show up for a given election. Prop. 13 benefits the old at the expense of the young. The list of failed Propositions goes on and on.

The problem with the current structure in California isn't that individuals are able to submit legislation for the vote, but that there is no serious moderation of voter-initiated legislation by elected officials competent in their area of expertise.

So, you're proposing that there would be a committee of sorts to decide the constitutionality of proposed bills?  With everything else being in the form of direct democracy?

Sounds like an interesting idea.  Internet democracy.

Essentially, yes. The biggest difficulty in implementing such a method would be devising full-proof mechanisms to prevent hacking of the system. A truly randomly-generated password, using a combination of both letters and digits, ought to suffice, though it would need to be slightly more complicated than our present Social Security structure.

[Scam of God]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

Watch here.

Each territory/township of a certain size is given a server with fully proxy admission. Each individual in that territory/township is given a randomly-generated password that logs them into the voting booth, hidden behind a proxy so as to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Each territory/township votes for moderators who regulate what legislation passes through the booth, serving as a check against populist sentiment. Using a Wiki/sandbox format, each individual is capable of writing their own legislation, which, provided it meets certain requirements, the moderators then pass on to be voted on. Thus there is a horizontal, rather than vertical, structure of checks-and-balances.

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

We already tried this direct democracy thing. It didn't work out so well. Thanks to direct democracy, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the legislatur eto pass a budget, but putting bigotry into the Constitution only takes a simple majority of those who bother to show up for a given election. Prop. 13 benefits the old at the expense of the young. The list of failed Propositions goes on and on.

The problem with the current structure in California isn't that individuals are able to submit legislation for the vote, but that there is no serious moderation of voter-initiated legislation by elected officials competent in their area of expertise.

So, you're proposing that there would be a committee of sorts to decide the constitutionality of proposed bills?  With everything else being in the form of direct democracy?

Sounds like an interesting idea.  Internet democracy.

Essentially, yes. The biggest difficulty in implementing such a method would be devising full-proof mechanisms to prevent hacking of the system. A truly randomly-generated password, using a combination of both letters and digits, ought to suffice, though it would need to be slightly more complicated than our present Social Security structure.

Potential system errors and outages are also a problem.

True, but no more of a problem than physical difficulties in attending Congress. In the first century of this nation's existence representatives would often have to come from all over the country on horseback or by coach, regardless of weather or climate conditions (or the Civil War or native strife). I hardly think it could be any worse than that.