Argument on revising our political system to a more direct form of representation.
September 27, 2006 - Mr. Daniel Rosen
September 27, 2006 - Dr. Walton's response, raising at least one apparent difficulty
Sept. 27, 2006: Mr. Daniel Rosen sends this argument on behalf of revising (or returning?) our political system to a more direct form of representation, by use of electronic methods. Though his message includes reference to his own candidacy, we accepted this as an item for Feedback because it focuses on the idea of representatives voting according to their constituents’ electronically-communicated choices. Mr. Rosen’s idea is presented below. It is followed by a brief response by Dr. Walton. Further clarifications by Mr. Rosen or further responses by others will be considered for inclusion.
In order to end political corruption and make government more responsive to the people, I have designed Nevada Vote Direct as a system for citizen control of our representative in Washington. At Nevada Vote Direct, registered voters in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District may vote not only on the issues of the day, but also on specific legislation pending in Congress. They will not be obliged to vote, and may vote only on the issues and bills that concern them. The system provides secure electronic voting in secret ballots conducted continuously on the Internet or by telephone, every day all day. Unlike the electronic voting system used by our government in our periodic elections, the open-source voting software at Nevada Vote Direct is available for inspection by anybody at any time to verify that it is secure, honest, and fair. But this is not just another opinion poll, for I have pledged that, when elected, I will vote in Congress EXACTLY as directed by the majority of voters in my congressional district. No lobbyists will even attempt to buy my vote, knowing that my vote belongs to the majority of voters in my district - no ifs, ands or buts.
We may have a different view of the founding principles of our republic. In several of your stated “Principles of Public Ethics,” it is apparent that you have a relatively loose interpretation of the idea of political representation that is built into our system of government. You leave considerable room for the representative to exercise her own judgment, and be “independent.” This is admittedly the more conventional interpretation.
But it seems to me that the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution held a wide spectrum of opinion with regard to the real nature of representation. There were those who believed that representatives in government were there to convey the will of the people quite strictly and without revision or refinement.
Unfortunately, this difference of viewpoint may be academic at this point. I believe we all know that our representatives in Washington consult neither the will of the people, nor their own conscience, when they vote on legislation in Congress. They are ruled by the big-money special interests who fund their campaigns – and in some cases their lavish lifestyles.
Moreover, political corruption has become the impassible obstacle on the way to solving every other problem that faces the nation. We cannot wait to reform the psychology of our representatives along more honest and ethical lines. The corruption of government is leading to immediate catastrophes of unimaginable proportions and on multiple fronts.
We cannot fuss with the Gordion Knot of corruption for a moment longer. As history demonstrates over the course of centuries, it cannot be untied with reform from within the system, or by urgings from without. Instead, we must, like Alexander with his sword, cut through it once and for all. We need to cut off corruption at its source.
This is what Nevada Vote Direct is designed to do. If special interests want the vote from Nevada's Second District after I am elected, they will need to arrange for ALL of the registered voters in our district to enjoy that junket in the Bahamas.
So, then, I'd like you to know that I support what you are doing wholeheartedly, and I sign the pledge in hopes that our common interest and motivation may outweigh any possible contradiction with what I am doing at Nevada Vote Direct.
GO TO Top of Feedback Page
On Sept. 27, Dr. Walton wrote the following response, raising at least one apparent difficulty.
Dear Mr. Rosen,
….As to your essay about how Nevada Vote Direct works, it is an interesting notion, and as you and I and many others believe, it would be a positive change if elected representatives voted in accord with their constituents' views.
The problems, of course, are 2: first, though you seem to consider NCPE’s understanding of our country’s political principles to be a “loose” take on our part, the Bill of Rights provides that some actions cannot be legislated by majority rule. There is real danger in what the founding fathers called "tyranny of the majority". You, however, seem to set that danger aside if your principle is that majority rule is always the right way to make laws and policies. The seven principles we spelled out refer to the Bill of Rights in order to make it clear (we hope) that the rights of persons , at least some of them, cannot be over-ridden , even by a large and strong majority.
The second problem is that there can be cases where a clear and strong majority both
agrees with an idea, worded in one way, and also rejects the idea, worded another way, so that discerning what people really want can sometimes be very hard to do. That does not invalidate Nevada Vote Direct, but it puts huge weight on you to word things perfectly, or somehow allow for dialogue before settling on the wording of the options available.
….Maybe we could use part of your email on our website? That is, could I quote from it, to show your thinking, and quote from my response, to show one response? We want to add a section for discussions, and this would be a good candidate for one area of discussion all of us could find valuable!
best,
GO TO Top of This Page
Return to Feedback
