Wouldn't "things be better" if we had one big "electronic town hall"?

Question

It seems that those who shout the loudest or have the most money are the one who get heard at the expense of the silent majority. I believe that it should be made easy for the silent majority to be heard through an electronic town hall of sorts. Now, this may exist already but I am unaware of it and I am guessing it is small and fragmented. I'm thinking if there was one place where everyone went, both the politicians and the voters, it would give the politicians a clearer picture of what their voters wanted.

As Google is to search engines, we need something equivilent for an electronic town hall. I am thinking one central starting point but it would be district specific where a politician could see the views only of his voters and just not any yahoo (as is this forum). Of course there we be a bunch things to work out, but it could be done.

Is there anything out there now in small form which we could support and help grow?

Answer 1

No.  Can you imagine millions of people all getting together trying to make important decisions? All the bickering and finger pointing?  Nothing would get done.

I'm all in favor of real campaign finance reform.  Here's step 1 and it's real simple.  Only people are allowed to make contributions to politicians or political parties..  That's it.  No teacher's unions, no corp money, no mandatory dues going to political causes, nothing.  Only people voluntarily contributing.

If you want to expand that, allow orgs like the NRA and Sierra Club, etc. to gather private donations by like minded citizens, and use that to contribute to politiicians and political parties.

All non-monetary contributions of any kind should be stopped.

Answer 2

Recently launched, my verdict.net is exactly what you are looking for. It seeks the majority opinion on every issue, for every community, from local level to international. It's free, anonymous, carries no ads and does not sell anything. About 1 in 4 people who visit register.

Answer 3

Most members of Congress know exactly what their district wants and needs. They are very good at catering to their districts' electorate. When they do polls most people hate Congress but love their own Congressman.

Those who take or wish to take part in the political process do; those who don't wish to take part don't. IMO there would not be an increase in participation, but then again I also don't subscribe to the theory that more participation is better. I believe there are large numbers of people who are either too stupid or too uneducated to make a positive contribution to political discourse.

As far as the "silent majority" the reason they are silent is that they don't have an opinion they feel strongly enough about to take action on it. I also fear, as the Founding Fathers  did, the tyranny of the majority. Our Constitution was written with checks and balances to insure that the individual has rights that cannot be taken away or subject to the whims of the majority. Somehow many people have been deluded into thinking that the collective wisdom of the many always equals good policy, this is inherently false. The wisdom of a lynch mob while popular with the participants is flawed, just ask the person being lynched!

Answer 4

so how do we keep 6 Billion Chinese from voting in our next president?

Answer 5

mmmmm i don't know

Answer 6

Yes, what's the web address?

Answer 7

too much opportunity for abuse.  who would administrate such a thing?

Answer 8

No, it's just silly.  The reason is that people with the most interest in things speak out the loudest.  There is no way to get those less interested to speak out, because they would be embarrassed by those with interests.

It is also a matter of intelligence, and those with less of it are not going to be so vocal - again because they will be embarrassed.

Electronic?  Well, you MUST give people access to their detractors.  They cannot be anonymous, and can (therefore) be challenged, and their arguments refuted.  And that will drive them away...

One of the big logical fallacies in the U.S. is that all people are able to argue their position with equal Merritt.  We recognize part of this fallacy when we allow people to hire representatives (lawyers).  Why do you think rich people speak thru lawyers?  It is no accident.  And why do you think poor people lose the arguments?  It is more than a matter of money - it is a matter of education.

Unfortunately, the decisions very often go to those with the ability to most successfully argue their positions, and whether they are right or not is of no consequence.  But imagine the case where the ignorant and uninformed get done what they want...  Do you think that is going to be better?  Interesting question.

An interesting slice of reality, huh?

Ron.