While doing some more research on how ballot proposals are conducted around the world and this issue on governments endorsing a position on each ballot measure struck me as very odd. Apparently this is quite common in European countries but here in the United States it is strictly forbidden as it is seen as a violation of freedom of speech among other issues that include voter mistrust in the government over certain ballot issues which the government has a vested interest in which is it almost always has in some aspect. We must take a proactive action to ensure the government does not endorse any vote that is brought before the people. It create neutral pamphlets like the State of California does to inform people of both pros and cons for and against each issue but what I would really like to see is public interest watchdog groups do this instead!
This is just another in a series of ideas in curbing government overreach that I have and I hope to generate interest in the groundwork of these potential problems before we have an entire framework already built.
Good one, Martin! I grew up in California and I remember my mom reading through the pamphlet of pros and cons for each new law proposal. I had no idea that other states did not do this.
This deeply applies to how e-voting is going to be implemented. Let’s get this stuff worked out in the wash before it’s affecting peoples lives.
I didn’t know until I started digging into this more that California, I can for once admit say they are doing something right. I am in my mind thinking out different scenarios that could occur on different subjects, sort of like emergency planning which you having a military background know very well. I know there are a ton different things that could happen and this is partly why laws are written the way they are even the US Constitution was written supposedly to curb the federal government in a way that the Articles of Confederation could not but that is a different issue though.
The main point I want to stress is the need of input from people that are not in the government but see issues or have concerns over something and are willing to bring that forward so everyone can bring their ideas about it to the table.
More people are needed to be doing the type of mind-work you are doing. I know not every mind will be capable, but for those that are, if we can get some % of them to work on this e-governance stuff, we can really create something amazing. Hopefully LL govt learns about the benefits of fully public discussions, otherwise they will get passed up by other projects. No one is interested in secrecy anymore.
I totally agree I think I saw somewhere that their policy is for any proposed vote is to be posted and discussed on this forum however only citizens and eresidents can post in that section.
Yeah, I bet why they started gatekeeping advice is probably because in their get-togethers they were inundated with random people giving opinions on everything under the sun. I can understand not wanting to physically entertain every idea when you just want to hang out and party.
But I think it’s a major mistake to try to gatekeep out ideas in the written format from people that can calmly articulate their ideas and are willing to offer well-thought-out defenses to their positions. In the written format on a forum, really good ideas often win support gradually.
I look at nutrition forums I haven’t been to in a while, and a good idea from five years ago will now be the currently accepted idea for the users. It just took a few years for that idea to germinate, grow roots, and take hold.
Murf you should know libertarians will always give their random opinions on everything well at least in America they do.
Gate keeping in the written format which we Americans call freedom of the press is abhorrent and since this website is an extension of the government there shouldn’t be any but I will say this I don’t think there is any gate keeping per se here since anyone that is a citizen or eresident can speak freely in those sections.
Yes good ideas can take years to be accepted if people are not properly educated and informed but even then some people will not accept good ideas because they think their way is the best no matter what. I don’t think that is the case here necessarily but we do need to encourage everyone to speak up if they have an idea that has not been shared yet or if it has agree with it and state why they do and give their opinion on it.
Haha the Libertarians sound like a talkative bunch! I only ever knew one in my earlier life. Come to think of it… since then, it’s almost like I’ve barely known anyone that even believes in much of anything. God bless the internet! Otherwise, I’d think I was just about the last non-zombie alive.
One small correction about this being “strictly forbidden” in the US: certain municipal governments in NH are allowed (and in some cases REQUIRED) to include a statement on the ballot stating that the body recommends/opposes the municipal ballot measure.
Darryl, I’m assuming NH is New Hampshire. For a state with such a great history, NH is incredibly disappointing to me the more I learn about it.
From AI “This is required by state law: the ballot must include not only the proposed amendment text but also a record of how the legislature voted on it. This enables voters to see whether their elected representatives were in strong support, divided, or mostly opposed to the measure, potentially influencing public perception and trust in the process. The intent is to inform the public, not to mislead or coerce; the New Hampshire Supreme Court has stated that ballot language must not be misleading, reinforcing the importance of neutrality and transparency.”
They should also include how Katy Perry feels about the proposals just in case the voter wants to abdicate their vote to her, lol.
The internet is the best for connecting like minded people that’s for sure!