I think it's one hell of an experiment, but in all honesty I don't wish you luck. When it comes to many things having to do with politics - and the clusterfuck that is California in the wake of their ballot initiative system is the prime example - people are dumb.

For lack of a better word, legislating is hard work. It's complex, it involves a lot of details about things that most people have no idea about, and it often involves putting the good of he few about the good of the individual. Congresspeople have an entire staff devoted to leaning about bills and telling their bosses how to vote - do we as individuals have enough time and knowledge to make a meaningful contribution?

You might also consider that if you're trying to represent the views of "everyday Americans," they're not (in general) the kind of people who will spend a few hours honestly and impartially considering the pros and cons of a bill in Congress and then coming to a reasoned decision. The vast majority of the people you'd get participating would be either political geeks who would talk forever, or drop-in participants who are only there because the NRA/NARAL listed you in a partisan mail shot.

I also wonder how you would deal with the speed of Congress - while most things are scheduled, it's rare to have much lead-time when dealing with floor amendments or things coming out of Committee. You'd also - especially in the House - need a solid educational component to explain what's being voted on (why is a vote on a Rule important and what does it impact, etc.).

I think the system is somewhat broken, but I don't think this is the way to fix it. Direct democracy works in very few places - Switzerland is the closest to the ideal you're presenting, I think - and those have very long participatory democratic traditions, and a high level of civic involvement. For the most part, it ends up with places having a huge number of specific budgetary requirements that are good in individuality, but when taken together hamstring the place from working (and make it issue IOUs).

Lastly, the minute you start dealing with any money, talk to a lawyer who does FEC stuff. Campaign finance is complex, and you (being pretty much anyone who doesn't specialize in it) almost certainly don't understand it well enough.

Like I said, I don't wish your idea luck, but I hope it doesn't fail for simple regulatory reasons.

Hello News.YCers!

Today, I'm submitting an idea that has been growing in the back of my mind for some time. The American political system is broken, and it's high time we apply our hacker creativity and startup ingenuity to reverse the rising tide of ignorance and apathy that threatens to sweep away any remaining semblance of informed, rational political discourse in the United States.

The Simplevote website doesn't explain many of the details; I'm still working those out. There are a myriad of potential objections and pitfalls; some of them are easily mitigated, some less so. Please ask questions and point out shortcomings in this idea; feel equally free to suggest solutions.

I'm an entrepreneur and web developer by expertise; I'm currently the founder of InQuickER, which was discussed here a few months ago. Ultimately, I may not be the person to spearhead this concept and push it forward over the next couple of years, and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, I think it's time for this idea to become reality, and I can't help but commit my time and money to getting the idea off the ground.

What do you think of this?

pretty cool idea

although you need to make a way so that only the constituents get to vote. Senators/Reps are there to represent their state/district, not the overall U.S. population

And since the thing will be online, you don't know whether foreigners are screwing the polls

You need to appear extraordinarily legitimate. On the website you need to refer to backers. As is, this scares me. If I had an agenda, I would pay India and a proxy to setup accounts and vote, vote, vote.

Simple is good, especially for marketing purposes, but complexity can be good too.

It's a good idea: You're competing against "traditional" congressmen by providing an enhanced service. You may force other representatives to offer more transparency to compete against votesimple: Even if votesimple loses a race, that would still lead to a win-win situation.

undefined

> In 2010, votesimple will run for one congressional seat in one district in the United States. If elected, we will establish a website where all Americans can read, analyze, discuss, ... each bill that comes before congress.

Cool.

> ... and vote on .... If the American people vote "yes" on a bill, our congressional representative will vote yes; if they vote "no", our congressional representative will vote no.

Not so cool. There are good reasons for having a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct one. I'd prefer not to head in that direction.

"Americans can read, analyze, discuss, and vote on each bill that comes before congress." What about the cases where the full text of the bill is not made public until like 2 hours before the vote?

I think you should get behind Lessig's change-congress.org project too.

One important thing is missing from your website: I was looking for a section called something like "Here's what you can do if you want to help"

How can you hope to change democracy with only 1 member out of 435?

Aren't US Representatives supposed to represent their district, not the country as a whole? Why would voters in a district vote to reduce their representation?

This sounds a bit like Jury Team, which fought the recent European elections in the UK and came 14th, gaining no seats.

And people will vote for each bill through the web? Doesn't that disenfranchise the many Americans without home internet access?

Running elections is hard -- you want to do it for each bill?

Creative idea. But a more compelling and hence considerably harder solution is to have a viable 3rd party.

Mob Rule! Mob Rule! Mob Rule!