Would you support a law that required the government to let the people vote on issues?
immigration, abortion, stem cell research, major environmental issues, tax issues, whether or not to pull out of the war, etc. they could have 2-4 votes per year on major issues and let the people decide...i really think the power needs to come back to the people not left entirely up to the government (no matter who is in power). too long have we had to sit back and watch the politicians make decisions that affect our lives without us having any say at all. it seems only the special interests groups with the most money have their say. this nation is supposes to be a government for the people and by the people, when did we lose that right? how do we get it back and when? personally i want my say back now !
i think something like this would also encourage ppl to vote more, its sad the turnout we have in this nation. hell i iraq they dodged bullets and car bombers to vote...we only have to dodge political signs.
- truth seekerLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Yes. I do not think our "representatives" represent the people. I think first of all, they represent themselves. And secondly, they represent only their political party. Why not let the people vote on the issues? The problem is that we have a representative democracy. so it will never happen.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
What you're suggesting is more along the lines of a true democracy, whereas the United States is actually a Constitution-based Federal Republic. While I do agree with you about letting the people vote on such large issues, I can only imagine that such an endeavor would be inherently costly and complicated. Indeed, with our last two presidential elections resulting in such long waiting times before knowing the final outcome of an election, doing this several times a year could really bog down the system, taking a very long time for the government to act on any measure.
- wyldfyrLv 71 decade ago
Our Constitution has worked pretty good for over 200 years. I don't think it would be good to change it now. If there is enough support for a particular issue there can be a Constitutional amendment. It is a good thing that it's not too easy to amend the Constitution. Look at the problems we had when prohibition was popular enough to pass an amendment. There are many states that have initiatives for issues. Most of the time the special interests groups with the most money still have their say. The previous answer's California example is a good illustration.
- 1 decade ago
study the "proposition" system in California. They do exactly what you're talking about. It has good points and bad. Sometimes they pass some really goofy sh** out there, but sometimes they get it right, too.
As a footnote, I live in a state that just had a vote on whether to amend the state's constitution to ban gay marriage and also not even allow civil unions. It passed 79% to 21%. I voted against it, even though I'm not gay. Why? Because constitutions should be documents that GIVE rights to people, not take them away! And because I think it sends the wrong message to gay people, by saying they are second class citizens.
That is just one example of how referenda can backfire. They can be used to codify discrimination.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
No. I believe that the Congress, when working effectively, should have the sole power to vote and enact national issues.
I also believe that we are given a tremendous right to vote on the ballots for referendums per municipal and state issues. States can vote on particular issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
I support letting an honest and decent Congress take care of the national issues.
Great questions though...good luck.
- 1 decade ago
Absolutely! Majority rules and everyone gets a say-so.
Abolish the Electoral College, it's completely obsolete- convince me my vote really does count!
Those high in power cannot, and do not, know what is best for me, only I know that.
The decisions that affect so many should not be made by so few.
- paulisfree2004Lv 61 decade ago
Yes I am very much in favor of a republic rather than a democracy which is what we now have, our elected leaders have sold us out for special intrests groups, and lobbists make their daily bread by bribing elected officals. A law suit would be dismissed however as its not the proper way to address this issue a consitutional ammendment would be however.
- OdindmarLv 51 decade ago
I've never heard anyone say " he was a good president ' after a term, people would always bad mouth him. So why bother voting? If all we'll ever get is bad presidents, I can do that with out voting?
Should every decision be voted on? Can you imagine how much lag that would bring into to law making process? Hell, people don't even vote as it is, so why bother adding more paperwork to an already defunct system?
- wachLv 45 years ago
Neither area is a hundred% spectacular on all matters. I understand that, yet i've got confidence that the Democrats carry the spectacular place greater beneficial than the Republicans, so I do vote situation. Taxes - I consider Dems greater beneficial than Republicans Spending - Dems Social coverage (gay marriage, abortion) - Liberals that are in the Democratic social gathering
- 1 decade ago
Don't think so. There are many people who do not understand many issues. Like the stem cell issue. Do you think that the civil rights bill of 1064 would have passed?