I have an honest question.

[conservative golfer dude]

I have an honest question and I would like to hear what you think about this idea. If the United States is based on a small, people choosing government then why can't we vote on a bill? I know that we pick the people to vote on them but why not just have we the people go to the polls and vote on a bill? Wouldn't make sense to pass it through the House, then through the Senate then through the people? Please tell me if this is logical.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Because democracy fails.

[Wings-n-Wind]

not logical....IMHO

Just elect Reps and Sens who are committed to their convictions.... conscience... and the Constitution...

Have a nice day

[MEG33]

I think the initiative process has both the good and bad in California.

[SamAdams76]

It's not logical. For one thing, we are a republic, not a democracy. For another thing, we'd be constantly voting as bills come up all the time. For yet another thing, if we vote on bills, what would we need a Congress and Senate for? And if we didn't have a Congress or Senate, who would bring the bills up for a vote?

[Ophiucus]

First response - we don't live in an absolute democracy, but a republic. The advantage is that we can avoid the mobocracy or tyranny of the majority of a pure democracy. What you propose would lead to only populist bills ever being passed. A republic's strength is having representatives that can do the right thing despite the current popular opinion - which changes faster than the wind, so a republic also has the advantage of continuity.

Submitting every bill to the public vote would be chaotic too - with the sheer number of bills that are passed, how many elections would be required and how would there ever be an "informed electorate" on all the obscure bills?

[ETERNAL WARMING]

We would have Mob Rule Legislation if we did that...which is why we have a Constitutional Republic instead of a straight Democracy. Also, the cost would be outta sight.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Because most of the important bills are too complicated for the average voter to understand and make a rational decision about. Overhauling Social Security? The average publik skool grad couldn't begin to figure out which of various proposed programs would actually be an improvement over the current unsustainable mess. How many of them can even perform a simple discounted cash flow valuation? Much less comprehend and realistically evaluate the larger economic projections which would be necessary to determine the likely cash inflows and appropriate discount rate. Just listen to the shallow babblings of the various presidential candidates on this topic (including Bush), and you'll get a very clear picture of the level the average voter is capable of thinking at.

[aimhigh]

Overhauling Social Security?

Simple, eliminat it.

[fiscally_right]

The original idea for a Republic versus straight Democracy was based on the idea that the average person is uneducated and ignorant, and therefore not well able to make the best choice for himself. That may seem denigrating now, but it was perfectly true in the past. The question is whether it is true today. Furthermore, the logistics of having the entire populace vote on act and bill would be an intimidating task, to say the least. Plus, even that assumes that a sizable portion of the electorate would even turn out, or log on, (or however else), to vote.

[fiscally_right]

Yes, as Shrinker says, many bills today are too complicated for the average person to know what is best. Not to mention that foreign policy decisions could not be decided without disclosing militarily sensitive material to everyone.

[cavdad]

Because the lobbyists don't have enough money to come to all our houses.

[Auntie Mame]

If we get to vote on bills, the first one I will vote yes on is the one that says: "Should conservative golfer dude provide Auntie Mame with 90 percent of his worldly goods?"

; - )

[Consort]

It would give rise to an oxymoron government: Organized Anarchy.

[Consort]

....plus the "Tyranny of the Majority" thing.