Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Nowhere Man]

Well, ya know.

We all want to change the world.

But, seriously, I think polls suck. I think news agencies interpreting polls sucks as well.

Would it not be simpler, and far more straight forward, to have national referendums on issues being disputed nationally, by the people and not by politicians? Would it help with removing the "spin" from issues on all sides?

It seems a great deal of effort is being spent to portray how Americans feel about national healthcare.

Why not just put it up to a vote?

I'm not saying that the exact legislation be voted upon. Rather, we determine whether people desire change or not.

While I have my opinions, I think all of this could be more deftly and accurately handled if a simple answer to the question of whether it's desired could be established.

Looking back, a referendum on the war would've been helpful in 2003. Not that I'd have won, but it'd still prevent a bunch of people clawing at each other while a disproportionately small number of people choose their positions weighing money versus constituents, a sad state of affairs that will be looked back at and laughed at when we move on.

I like the idea of it. It's democracy.

[RufusW]

Ideally an electorate would vote daily on a range of issues. At the moment we only get the chance every 4/5 years and the gap is filled by lobbyists (influence via money). The UK is getting down to specifics, the U.S. is still struggling with fundamentals = furore.

[bucheon bum]

a part of CA's budgetary meltdown is due to referendums. While voting on issues such as marijuana for medicinal purposes, and eliminating affirmative action are one thing, voting on things that affect the gov't budget (such as good ol' prop 13) are another.

That's the problem with referendums that involve money. Everyone is going to vote in favor of tax cuts and new spending programs. Why? Because they both sound great! And the average voter doesn't have the time or interest to look into the financial repercussions of implementing the tax cut or spending program.

And your proposal says whatever voted on does not become law, just provides a "sign" for our leaders. Well:

1. The voter turn-out is going to suck for that.
2. It will disproportionally represent older people and under represent younger people.

You could minimize those by being able to vote online BUT you'd also have to have the traditional polling booths so the seniors don't go ape-shit. In short, it would be very costly. And for what? For slightly more accurate polling? Joy.

[Nowhere Man]