h a l f b a k e r yReplace "light" with "sausages" and this may work...
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
Isn't this what referenda are? Although I suppose you want them to be more widely used, and to have some actual legal force. |
|
| |
Initiatives work at the state level. Here in WA, the voters have very effectively prioritized transportation issues (even if I-745 failed this time around), for example. |
|
| |
What i'm talking about is not amendments or even referenda. I'm saying, let's have what would essentially be a poll, like we see all of these polling firms do, but on the national level. Instead of using statistics, let's get the real numbers; "How many people who actually vote care about the following, and in what order?" |
|
| |
Only the issue would be listed, not the solution. For example, you might have abortion, health care, social security, education, minimum wage, etc. The only reason that this is needed is that most candidates match each other issue for issue, but we don't know what their priority is. And yes, health care was a major Clinton issue, but you do have to admit that it was at least discussed quite often. However, woudn't Congress take it more seriously if they knew that the population considered it their number one priority not just throught the president they selected, but because the nat'l poll said so? |
|
| |
Hey, now we're talking. Wish I'd seen this before writing up "tax explanation", though that's possibly a practical idea to make this one come true. However, I was thinking more of voting for 1 issue each voter, as opposed to bureaucratic prioritizing. This way, we end up with government policy decided by voters. Of course, there would be a problem if 50% voted for more defence while the others voted for disarmament....but I like the principle. |
|
| |