Originally posted by: complich8
As for direct democracies... As it is, many people don't vote (2004 saw 55% voter turnout, the highest it'd been since 1968). If everyone were given cell phones and the ability to text-message their vote to a handy number, say with voting issues texted out to everyone whenever they come up, with say a 48 hour window to get your vote in, automatic tabulation, etc ... it'd certainly be attainable. I don't think direct democracy is out of reach, given some sane planning and deployment (not that that's something the government is known for). But at the same time I think that such a direct democracy is generally a bad idea, because popular opinion are too easily manipulated.
I still say it would be a pain in the ass. 48 hours would be too long for town, county, and state decisions. I mean, if you look at all the decsions a state makes in 48 hours (contracts, zoning/land rights, tax laws, fundings, budgets, etc.) you'd have a text message that would take days to read. Just getting rid of the position of mayor of a small town would be almost impossible, considering that the decisions/bills/contracts they sign for the town would have to be voted on. Christ, in high school I was in charge of logistics one year for rotc, and that was a nightmare; I can't imagine what it would be like if all of my classmates (a couple of hundred) had to vote on each and every agreement I made to spend or make us money. Besides, would you want uninformed people voting on things like whether to allow this or that piece of land to be zoned for residential, or commercial property? God, even thinking about what the mayor and town council in my little area do would be more than people can handle.
Well, hopefully he doesn't swing it enough to overturn roe v wade, but if he does, like I said before, it'll be left to the states. God help the women in the south.