Is political representation anachronistic? Wasn't it put in place when transportation and communication were both extremely difficult?
Haven't we moved beyond that? Doesn't everyone have a voice now? Doesn't everyone have a platform with which to express their opinion?
Imagine this situation: A bill is being proposed. A text/email is sent out to everyone. Everyone votes on the issue. The people are represented. Issue resolved. We wouldn't have to worry about lobbying (well, maybe they'd figure out a way to lobby the people. Advertisements?) as much as we do now when so many individuals would have to be targeted.
Pardon me if I'm being a bit too idealistic but I've grown a bit tired of people calling for dramatic revolutions. I don't think that'd help. Democracy is a nice thing, when it's actually a democracy. Individual representation is possible now. Sure, people will still get their panties in a bundle. But at least they were represented.
God I hope not. The majority of Americans aren't in-tune enough to have an opinion. Remember what Churchill said.Haven't we moved beyond that? Doesn't everyone have a voice now? Doesn't everyone have a platform with which to express their opinion?
Right and I'm aware of that. But I can't shake the notion that the uninformed American would make a better decision than a corrupt politician.
Imagine this: You have a politician you support and that politician has the equivalent of a kickstarted campaign. You can donate 100$ to them. As they vote on legislations and push agendas you can either take money away or give more to that kickstarted campaign. -This way campaign funding would be more in the peoples hands and it would hold representatives accountable.
Except that for every $100 donated by a real citizen, lobbyists with connections can donate 100 million. EDIT: also no that's not really lobbying. Lobbyists have a hand in what politicians vote for beforehand, not after the fact via withholding contributions. (Both, really.)
No, it's not called lobbying. Here's an example of something a lobbyist would do: 1. Represent a company, say BLOB_CASTLE brick manufacturers inc (B_C BM INC) 2. Gain access to a legislator (helps that most lobbying firms worth their salt have ex-legislators on payroll) 3. Donate large sums of money on behalf of B_C BM INC to legislature in exchange for favors 4. Legislator puts forth a bill mandating that all bricks used in government building must come from a minority owned brick supplier and he knows just the one. B_C BM INC is 25% hispanic owned 5. B_C BM INC gets hundreds of millions in govt contracts for their bricks and doles out a small percentage annually for the reelection fund of those legislators the lobbyist has procured. What I suggested is a real-time way for politicians to see the effects, monetarily (where it hurts them) of the decisions they make. Couple this with actual campaign finance reform (eliminating B_C BM INC's ability to donate) and you've got a much nicer and more responsive system imo.
I think that might be far more ideal than my proposed situation. I think there is tangibility to what I'm proposing.