Posted on 05/03/2010 6:15:04 AM PDT by Pharmboy
THE American public is not pleased with Congress — one recent poll shows that less than a third of all voters are eager to support their representative in November. “I am not really happy right now with anybody,” a woman from Decatur, Ill., recently told a Washington Post reporter. As she considered the prospect of a government composed of fledgling lawmakers, she noted: “When the country was founded, those guys were all pretty new at it. How bad could it be?”
Actually, our founders were not all that new at it: the men who led the revolution against the British crown and created our political institutions were very used to governing themselves. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and John Adams were all members of their respective Colonial legislatures several years before the Declaration of Independence.
snip...
If one wanted to explain why the French Revolution spiraled out of control into violence and dictatorship and the American Revolution did not, there is no better answer than the fact that the Americans were used to governing themselves and the French were not.
snip...
“A long continuance in the first executive departments of power or trust is dangerous to liberty,” declared the Maryland Constitution. “A rotation, therefore, in those departments is one of the best securities of permanent freedom.” In addition to specifying term limits for its plural executive, the radical Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 likewise required that after four annual terms even the assemblymen would have to give way to a new set of legislators so they would “return to mix with the mass of the people and feel at their leisure the effects of the laws which they have made.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I really don’t think the problem with our country is “representation”.
The Founders themselves were aware how fragile this is. Once people realize they can vote themselves money, there goes the republic.
As to your idea about telecons, etc., that’s all very nice, but in the end it doesn’t work. Especially with THOUSANDS? Are you kidding me? That’s chaos. 1st you have to ensure it actually WORKS and doesn’t fail, but there are things you just cannot do without being in person. Plus, now you have corporate interests involved in the technology to pursue this approach. Take it from someone who knows something about “net meetings” and telecons. And that’s for SMALL 10-person meetings.
When you talk about telecons, are you specifically talking about teleconferences? Where a group of people are speaking on the phone?
I work in IT data center operations, I have several Cisco certifications, and I’m in the process of working on a Masters degree thesis that specifically goes against what you’re putting forward here. The technology already exists for full video, high quality audio conferencing over high-cap MANs and WANs. This is entirely possible and is already in use in many large corporations.
To your point on the Founders, I would argue that they wouldn’t agree with pegging the House at 435 either. That was an arbitrary number come to by leftists back in the early 20th century. That fact alone angers me enough to want to see that law repealed, at the least, or article the first ratified at the most.
Yes, the telephone. The best is with a “speakerphone” set-up where 1 group calls in to the other group. Everyone talking on separate phones is a total nightmare. But getting beyond 12 people generally is a nightmare, too.
In what capacity are these things in use in large corps? With thousands of people at once as you suggest for our representation? Or are most of those thousands just share-holders who aren’t really active in a conversation, but just listening to know what’s going on with their investment?
I’d appreciate better technology with excellent real-time video and audio, but you’d still need a GIANT Jumbotron to cover viewing all the parties - and if they’re all in separate places, wow; potentially alot of insets. You can’t cover all the people all the time and see/hear/FEEL the nuances that you can in 3D presence. It just isn’t the same. You may be an expert, but with much-smaller conferences I’ve actually experienced, you miss alot and even get frustrated. People within a plant always end up choosing to actually MEET together most of the time. Tech is great for limited uses, but it should never be a permanent solution.
Back to the base point - we really don’t need that many people.
My point about the Founders didn’t have to do with numbers. It had to do with why we go downhill - primarily because people are selfish and would love to get lots for nothing (even if that’s not truly what they get). Founders specifically warned about this. Tempters like socialists who sing this song sound nice and people vote for them because they want something for nothing, more than they want the ability to do what they wish.
I’m a Founding purist when it comes to this country’s politics. I believe our Founders were once-in-a-lifetime geniuses who God put together here for us to found this perfect union. If they made this the first article for ratification, I believe they viewed it as penultimate.
As far as the tech stuff, there are a lot of instances of large-scale teleconferences in major companies. You are right about the interaction. These are usually one-to-many speaking engagements where a camera is focused on the speaker. We’re not talking about hundreds of individuals talking in conferences across the world.
In the case of this scenario, I believe several long-view cameras on the respective district gatherings with a podium inset for the main speaker would be ideal. Something like this wouldn’t work in a government like the UK where they talk over each other, but if there’s a level of decorum and an order for speaking, I believe that this would work. Also, considering this is a domestic endeavor, I believe the bandwidth would be sufficient with landlines. Overseas communications have issues with latency due to satellite communications, but video communications can still take place.
You’re right, Rebel, that we’re still several generations of technology away from full-scale, real time audio/video communications, but for a Representative government with 6,000 men and women, I believe this is entirely feasible.
“I believe our Founders were once-in-a-lifetime geniuses who God put together here for us to found this perfect union.”
“Amen!” to that. Definitely Divinely inspired.
I can see your view, if you’re saying you’d have several congregations of representatives together. That would be something like our meeting-to-meeting discussions. Not as bad as having each person get his own hook-up in his own office.
I definitely agree the Founders were sent by God.
We need another set. Re-Founders? In this immoral world, though (fostered by LIBERALs/Commies/whatever you want to call them), it seems about impossible to have that happen.
The problem there, Reb, is that the wolves will don sheep’s clothing when the knives are out. With the MSM completely in the tank for the liberals, any perceived or real injustices will go unreported, and the masses who only rely on the MSM for news will be unaware of the dangers of some of the most insidious representatives. I’m certain the folks in New York are completely jaded by the likes of Schumer. He must look like a God to them. I can’t fathom how someone would vote for that asshat.
We really do need a re-Founding, the American equivalent of the Renaissance. Unfortunately that requires that people stick their necks out for their faith, and most people in this country wouldn’t do that.
Personally, I would die for this country, and I would stand in front of a group of people and proudly espouse my belief in the Founders. Sadly, money rules politics now, and the ability for people like me to take office is severely limited by funding. I don’t know that I’d want the stress either. This is why I’m promoting Article the First. Even more local representation is necessary. I want to stop the wheels from turning in DC. It seems like every time they open session, more of our rights are stripped from us!
BUMP!
Sadly most never leave Capital Hill even if defeated, they remain as lobbyist, and consider themselves, Privileged Elitists.
BTTT!
btrl
Ah yes, the eunuchs of the Forbidden City. Good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.