Not such a bad idea

Re “E-mail democracy,” editorial, Nov. 4

“Sorry, that’s not how it works,” says The Times, rejecting the proposal that a candidate “will vote only the way his constituents tell him to.” True, it doesn’t currently work that way, but that doesn’t make it a bad idea. In fact, the way it currently works is a criminal sham. Currently, the largest campaign donor to the representative determines how that representative votes, not the will of the majority of his constituents.

What Daniel Rosen, candidate for Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District, proposes is a breath of fresh air that is badly needed.

The Times implies that voters can’t be trusted to understand the issues, apparently because legislation might contain big, grown-up words like “rescission.” But a representative is not a kind of oracle, explaining the mysteries of politics and complicated bills. He is someone we put in office to vote as we would have him vote.

JAMES HANES

Los Angeles

*

Had a direct-vote method such as instantaneous e-mail been an option when our country was founded, I am sure it would have received serious consideration.

You mention tyranny of the majority yet ignore the fact that only 30% of registered voters ever bother to vote despite the ability to cast an absentee ballot. I think it quite reasonable that if e-mail democracy were implemented, the same 30% would be in control and just as well informed as anyone else.

Our country is run by lobbyists and special-interest groups with the deepest money pockets and by incumbents who are so cemented in place that only term limits get rid of them.

As to tackling difficult issues, I remind you that the vast majority of our elected leaders never read the actual bills being considered. They rely on summaries prepared by their staff or, more likely, the special-interest group behind the legislation. The general public can certainly do the same, but at least they will know and be able to address the bias inherent in those summaries.

In an e-mail democracy, we would indeed eliminate the middleman together with all the influence-peddling and outright corruption that accompanies our current system. I find it rather amusing that The Times always seems to back liberal justices rewriting the Constitution, yet you choke when an innovative thinker such as Rosen comes up with a simple method to bring democracy back to the people.

DAVID HILL

Murrieta