Do you suggest that controversies involving proposed anti-missile systems, undercover intelligence operations, and surveillance satellites be placed on the internet for anyone including our enemies to read?
How about confidential briefings on the backgrounds of persons nominated to head the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Department, and the State Department?
Can ordinary people make informed judgements on such issues as the intricacies of proposed international copyright agreements, the efficacy of verification provisions in a nuclear arms treaty, the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining a particular overseas military base, or determining which aircraft manufacturer has developed the superior engine and should win the contract to construct a new generation of fighter jets?
It takes months, sometimes years, for some legislation to come to a vote. There is a reason. Legislators sit through committee hearings, turn to experts on their staff, and research the ramifications of their vote. Many have gained expertise on key issues having studied it for years. Are you suggesting we abandon this system to let people "phone in their instant opinion."
Shouldn't these decisions be made by those who know the difference between the budget deficit and the national debt, between Kurdistan and Kazakstan, between a bill and an appropriation, between a ballistic missile and an intercontinental missile?
Consider also, that bills often face last minute amendments. Must voters "phone in" their vote on every single proposed addition or deletion that the bill faces? Should voters stay home from work to follow every detail?
At best, we get a 50%-55% turnout in a Presidential election that stretched from New Hampshire in January to the Election in November. Should legislators be required to vote according to their districts' wishes when only 5% or 10% of their constituents even bother to vote on a particular bill?
The mechanisms to implement this suggestion would be a nightmare.
How do you get a "fair and balanced" explanation of the proposal facing the voters? The explanation written by a Democrat will be different from the one written by a Republican.
How would you stop hackers from corrupting the internet vote?
How can you insure that only citizens vote?
How can citizens who lack internet access make their will known?
Will voting by internet eliminate a secret ballot? (Will bosses demand to look over their workers' shoulders to make sure they vote the "right" way?)
It should be remembered that the United States is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. (Remember the pledge to the flag?) If implemented, this proposal would change the very nature of what the United States of America is. I'm not ready to toss out the wisdom of a James Madison quite yet.
