No one in their right mind wants government by mass mind. No one wants majority rule and if someone does, they have no idea how it might work. There is no doubt in my mind there are minds in America today, far superior to those who privately crafted governments, state and national, centuries ago, when wisdom was respected and fashionable. There are few if any political parties that believe the old U.S. Constitution is not in need of upgrade to suit the times. While the original was drafted by elitist, self righteous property and slave owners, the replacement could easily be crafted by high school and college students, professional think tanks, concerned citizens, non citizen residents, political parties and political candidates. We just need a few rule changes to make this happen.
Rule number one:
No political candidate may run for any state office until that candidate has submitted a proposal for changes in the state constitution and made it public.
Rule number two:
No political party shall have ballot status until it has submitted a proposal for changes in the state constitution and made it public. Party platforms can be next to useless but a proposal for changes in the laws that govern us all, tells a resident, citizen, or voter far more than campaign platforms, themes, pledges and promises. All people would have the opportunity to know what was at stake in any election.
Rule number 3:
No candidate for national office may have ballot status without submitting a revision of the national constitution and making it public.
Rule number 4:
No political party may attain ballot status in a national election until it has offered revisions to the national constitution and made it public.
Rule number five:
No person shall vote in any election in which that person has not demonstrated a knowledge of the ballot qualified parties.
We have a policy in our universal education of testing proficiencies in key subjects, such as English, mathematics and science. Yet the social contract, the laws we choose to live by together are handed to us by corporate professional specialists, crafting social behavior by incessant law making. Shouldn't laws be made by the people who must live by them and bear the costs? Should those who know nothing of law and social contract be making those laws and that contract we are forced to live by in our daily lives?
By the way, shouldn't the people who are paying for the spread of democracy get a look at the proposals for the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq? It's mostly math that tells us the cost of a war in blood and money. By what measure do we determine the value of the democracy effort?
Disenfranchising the ignorant sounds undemocratic, yet it is the only way a democratic government can prevent morphing into the previous or latest tyranny. Everything is OK with some folks, some things are OK with most folks and nothing is OK with few folks. The last group likely has the most to offer the other two but they have no franchise and little public expression. Their votes count the least, if they bother at all. In a democracy of ignorance, ignorance rules and ignorance is easily manipulated by those with great agendas, often no less ignorant than those they claim to represent. If there has been a noticeable dumbing down of modern politicians, we can point to an educational system that holds law to be a specialty. Even those who choose the specialty are cheated of a basic education in the historical development, principles and fundamentals of law. Hence, they graduate to practice corporate law they neither know nor understand. Those who go on to write law are also simply practicing, at every one else's expense.
A U.S. Congressman proclaimed during last year's presidential campaign that no one in Congress reads all the bills they vote on. They depend upon aides and assistants to summarize the bills and they vote on the summary. We are told that if Congressmen had to read the laws they vote on, nothing would get done. Maybe it is time to stop getting things done and examine the whole political system.
Rule number 6:
no bill in any legislative body may be voted on unless it has been published for 30 days and the pros and cons from all responders are tallied. This would allow the public to see when they are being overruled by those claiming to represent them. The idea that we could get along without a given law for ten years or a hundred and then need to rush a vote in the next few days or hours, is absurd on its face.
Most Americans now understand that laws are not written by their representatives in law making bodies. Laws are written by special interests who hire lobbyists to submit and promote laws favoring the writers. Representatives then debate and vote upon these laws. If they were voting only after 30 days of public feedback, special interests would not have but a fraction of the power they now enjoy.
Rule number 7:
No legislator shall post any bill for public examination, without disclosing the source of the bill and a list of expected beneficiaries. The fact is that most of our social contract is null and void, due to fraudulent, treasonous government. Those most affected by current and future law, have had no say in it. How can this be considered democratic in any way? How long should we pretend it is? This is the Information Age, not the Plantation Age. Perhaps it is time for the Law of the Land to reflect this minor change. What role should ignorance play in the American future? Can we move to a qualified republican democracy from a cruel joke? Where there is no will, there is no way.