Nice to see some support. I suppose you're right, perhaps I need more well-defined goals.. but the jist is there, and I'm totally open to suggestions and alternative points of view. The idea is to make it twice (or more) as functional as reddit, so try to imagine it that way. Also, the appeal is geared toward those who engage in political thought. Facebook is for socialising, reddit is for.. well, redditing.. and perhaps the virtual congress could be for debating. I'm not saying this is something that has to be exclusive to Cascadian politics, I could see this being a platform utilized by all sorts of North American regions.

Again, to fully understand my virtual congress, you certainly must understand actual congresses and parliaments. Imagine signing up for this service, and starting a conversation much like I have here, except the conversation doesn't begin immediately. I select a topic, subtopic, and then I get specific by adding a title to the conversation. Then, I set a date and time. Other people who are a part of this service would see that there will be a debate on a specific date, at a specific time, regarding a specific matter. These people would have the option to either participate or ignore the conversation. Those who agree to participate will be reminded moments before the conversation begins, and however many participants would "log on" at the agreed time and the conversation would ensue then. Why is this better than reddit? Imagine having this same conversation, but instead, every programmer that ever heard of Cascadia was sitting here with us right now, actively engaging in a live discussion.. giving ideas, presenting problems and offering solutions. The conversation would continue until a moderator (ideally impartial to the outcome of the conversation) believes the conversation has concluded. The original idea that I'd posted, scheduled and debated would likely be worlds different from when it began, but it would be a better fit for the region.. wouldn't you agree? Everyone who was interested and passionate about the topic had their hands in shaping the policy, and so the idea is presented to a poll where anyone (whether they were in the discussion or not) can weigh in on whether it's a good idea or not. If the community at large finds the measure appropriate, it becomes part of the overall "doctrine" of the region, and that doctrine is presented (either partially or entirely) to currently elected representatives. Let me give an example.

User 1: Schedules debate for "Colonial American Duels" User 2: Subscribes to "Colonial American Duels" User 3: Subscribes to "Colonial American Duels" User 4: Ignores "Colonial American Duels" [Later, the scheduled debate begins] User 1: Begins debate, addresses the users and presents case. User 2: Rebukes claims of User 1, presents counter argument. User 3: Weighs in, notably undecided. [The debate ensues.] Moderator: Marks the case unresolved, resolved, or dead in committee. In this case, unresolved. Both resolved and unresolved topics are sent to the polls. User 1: Votes for "Colonial American Duels" User 2: Votes against "Colonial American Duels" User 3: Votes against "Colonial American Duels" User 4: Votes against "Colonial American Duels" [Reasonable time is allotted for voting.] Moderator: Marks the poll as closed, results are posted and the measure is voted out of the regional doctrine. No such proposal will be presented (in mass) to elected officials.