The Case for a "More Perfect" Union
I have started to ponder if there is, indeed, "an app for that."
It seems to me that we should be able to come up with the next "killer app" that basically allows all of us, in real-time, to vote for every single piece of legislation Congress wants to enact. It pops up on your smartphone with the bill coming up for a vote, with the text of the actual bill, and links to details, blog-posts, etc., about its potential impact, with various streams of yea or nay propaganda from "interested parties". But YOU get to vote. The app would then report, again in real-time, precisely how everyone in your particular district, and overall, is currently voting, with a real-time graph. Something our representatives could also view in real-time.
You could even have "gradient" voting, ranging from strongly, somewhat, etc., against to strongly, somewhat, etc. for.
You could change your mind, based upon further evidence or understanding of the effects of the bill once passed. If a bill you voted for turns out really bad, you could then start pressing legislators to repeal it using the same mechanism.
The point is to remove the whole "either/or black and white" nature of what is essentially a statistical problem of managing politics for the common good. Who better to know what's best for the common good than us commoners ourselves?
Also, every time some representative claimed that his or her constituents gave them a mandate on something, we could verify that in real-time.
We need to somehow transition from voting for people to voting for the bills themselves. One person one vote should be exactly that. And it is an achievable ideal. Today. Right now. The fact is, no one truly represents me. I should have the right to represent myself (with the advice and consent of everyone else, of course --a Democracy!)
I'd really like to put the whole job of politician out of work, actually. The day-to-day functioning of the government could be run by all of us, called to duty much in the way we do jury duty. There would still be professional classes supported by special interests. But the actual charge of implementing policy would be done by all of us, randomly selected (with established caveats, of course, and as we self-design by legislation).
The reason more people don't vote is because most legislation does absolutely nothing for them personally. Under half even bother because the system is so rigged by special interests that all our legislators now live in a bubble, and are forced by the design of the system to chase that ever-vanishing "middle" --the "likely" voter who changes sides. That's really ALL of us, when it comes to a particular piece of legislation, but rarely the MAJORITY of us for ANY legislation. Except for marijuana legalization. Oh, and universal healthcare. You see where I'm heading, right?
People afraid of a true majority rule system of governance are afraid of the tyranny of the majority because we don't have control over the process of establishing that majority in the first place. But a majority on anything is really a statistical problem, and ever-fluctuating. A real-time voting system can accommodate for that. But not a slow-moving representative system, which is increasingly controlled by an elite class, and systematically disenfranchises what the "true" majority really wants. There never was, nor can be, any sort of permanent, tyrannical majority on any issue, especially if every last one of us has a say so in the matter.
Instead, we are locked into this game of "fear and loathing on the campaign trail", all because our Founding Fathers were circumscribed by a pre-telecommunication era. If they were all suddenly popped into the present day, would they not create a system whereby their ideal of all persons, having been created equal, had equal say in their own governance, if such technology existed to enable them to do so?
Democracy by proxy is no Democracy at all. Truth is, we've never been able to even try it. Until now.
I'd be willing to bet that the richer a person is, the less that person wants a true Democracy. Think about where you are on that spectrum before you dismiss this idea outright.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Are you prepared to trust voters to have read every word of the ACA when it was drafted?
The rest of the OP (" The day-to-day functioning of the government could be run by all of us"
is pure fantasy. Except for the last part ("I'd be willing to bet that the richer a person is, the less that person wants a true Democracy) which is lazy stereotyping.
The Government is run by SOME of us. Some are "Educated. Smart. Professional. Ethical", and some are not but work for the Government because it pays a salary. The bottom line is that the average voter (who is ALSO not necessarily "Educated. Smart. Professional. Ethical" isn't necessarily interested in the day to day or long term process of Government decision-making, and is happy to leave that to others.