[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Has nobody mentioned proportional representation yet? The idea that instead oif having a single vote you have, for example, three, and select three candidates in order of preference. This effectively eliminates a simple two-horse system but can also lead to the election of a party that everyone decided was second best.

i believe that a more effective form of government would be if you have more than person assuming the presidential position. there's a lot of ego and ambition attach to the position that in most cases, the needs of the people are taken as secondary thoughts after the personal satisfaction of being the ruler of a country.

demonrail: what you propose can be a good way to make a transition from where we are and where we could go.

now, if they counted absitinence too...

[demonrail666]

PR has its pluses but I'm not sure about public participation in juries. Besides, as it is the whole peer issue is ridiculous. If i were to be genuinely judged by my peers I'd probably end up with 12 slightly overweight men with an unhealthy interest in the singer out of The Lunachicks.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

PR has its pluses but I'm not sure about public participation in juries. Besides, as it is the whole peer issue is ridiculous. If i were to be genuinely judged by my peers I'd probably end up with 12 slightly overweight men with an unhealthy interest in the singer out of The Lunachicks.

ha ha. maybe, but i've read in one of toffler's books that it's had good results in some countries (scandinavian i think to remember). like saying for example, should we raise the water rates? rather than having politicos & their lobbyists decide, you could have a jury of civilians that would weigh the issues & make a decision.

another possibility would be the expansion of the referendum system-- you have to admit you'd put the vote in the hands of those who pick the winner of "american idol", but it would be more representative than elected officials.

[demonrail666]

Abstaining from voting is a useful way of sending a message to the political parties that they're failing the public. Of course, this only works if its joined by a significant number of other woiuld-be voters. Obviously, the cost is that in the short term a party will be elected with a minimum of votes but, at least hopefully, it will open up the door to those who want to meet the needs of voters that have chosen to withdraw from the process.

Unfortunately, something like that has been going on in the UK's inner cities for a few years now, largely in response to what has been perceived to be a reluctance by the mainstream political parties to openly address issues of race and immigration. Consequently, there has been a massive rise in far-right parties in these areas targeting the disenfranchised white population.

[demonrail666]

LOL, the thought of Alvin Toffler getting to vote on major decisions is almost as scary as handing power over to the American Idol voters.

[SynthethicalY]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Abstaining from voting is a useful way of sending a message to the political parties that they're failing the public. Of course, this only works if its joined by a significant number of other woiuld-be voters. Obviously, the cost is that in the short term a party will be elected with a minimum of votes but, at least hopefully, it will open up the door to those who want to meet the needs of voters that have chosen to withdraw from the process.

Unfortunately, something like that has been going on in the UK's inner cities for a few years now, largely in response to what has been perceived to be a reluctance by the mainstream political parties to openly address issues of race and immigration. Consequently, there has been a massive rise in far-right parties in these areas targeting the disenfranchised white population.

I think this is flawed, that by not voting you are not sending your message. That is just wrong, by you not voting that you are saying I don't care and screw the country, and don't pay any attention to us. But this is my opinion.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

LOL, the thought of Alvin Toffler getting to vote on major decisions is almost as scary as handing power over to the American Idol voters.

no, silly, not toffler-- JURIES. you could for example be one of the group that decides say the tax rate on your town. or have a referendum to decide if euthanasia should be legalized.

in switzerland i think referendums are the order of the day.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Abstaining from voting is a useful way of sending a message to the political parties that they're failing the public. Of course, this only works if its joined by a significant number of other woiuld-be voters. Obviously, the cost is that in the short term a party will be elected with a minimum of votes but, at least hopefully, it will open up the door to those who want to meet the needs of voters that have chosen to withdraw from the process.

Unfortunately, something like that has been going on in the UK's inner cities for a few years now, largely in response to what has been perceived to be a reluctance by the mainstream political parties to openly address issues of race and immigration. Consequently, there has been a massive rise in far-right parties in these areas targeting the disenfranchised white population.

rest the far right parties, substitude them with far left parties and you're talking about mexico. except that the left here are pretty good at contradicting themselves and causing anger with the people.

the point of abstinence, the way i have thought about it, is that, should it be counted, would make an election null so that none of the candidates and their proposition get a place in the government and that new campaigns and candidates are thought about to get the people what they want, making a "survival of the fittest" scenario. the downside, of course, is that if no one comes up with something that speaks to the people, then the governing entity might eternize itself through this process and, of course, it would still be an election of the masses.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by SynthethicalY

I think this is flawed, that by not voting you are not sending your message. That is just wrong, by you not voting that you are saying I don't care and screw the country, and don't pay any attention to us. But this is my opinion.

actually, you are sending the message that you think the candidates and proposals presented are not good enough and you're not convinced by any of them.

the way i see things, voting for someone who is just "good enough" is just sticking to mediocrity and injustices, but i have talked long about this.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SynthethicalY

I think this is flawed, that by not voting you are not sending your message. That is just wrong, by you not voting that you are saying I don't care and screw the country, and don't pay any attention to us. But this is my opinion.

well no, in the u.s. only about 36% of eligible voters vote, and we get crummy candidates.

if people truly mobilized to vote, politicians would be more careful about catering to the whole population. if voting was mandatory for example.

however, representative democracy as stands now is a XIX century institution and needs to be revamped for our age.

[demonrail666]

I don't know how it works in the US, but one way in which the democratic process could be revived in the UK woulkd be to put a cap on campaign spending. This would provide an incentive for smaller independent parties that lack the massive financial power of the major parties to step into the arena. At the moment, democracy has less to do with what you have to offer the people than it does how much you can afford to spend convincing them to vote for you.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I don't know how it works in the US, but one way in which the democratic process could be revived in the UK woulkd be to put a cap on campaign spending. This would provide an incentive for smaller independent parties that lack the massive financial power of the major parties to step into the arena. At the moment, democracy has less to do with what you have to offer the people than it does how much you can afford to spend convincing them to vote for you.

that is a HUUUUGE issue here. we keep hoping.

[pantophobia]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

that is a HUUUUGE issue here. we keep hoping.

and of course you know how HUUUUGE it is in the US when the media ignores third parties

one problem here i find is that there is no presidential runoff election option, i see other countries vote for promising third party candidates in mass, cause there the vote really does count for something, it would really show where people stand

here people only vote for those who can actually win, even if there is another candidate they like better, or don't even know about in most cases

but ever since Perot and Nader, there seems to be a circling of the wagons on both sides to keep it two a duopoly, but there constantly seems like there is an air of splintering, but it seems more whimsy then actual precognitive prediction of a change to come

[!@#$%!]

pantophobia -- i think the problem with 3rd parties here is their electoral strategy, they all want to elect presidents without an ounce of congressional support.

green libertarian and other parties would be better off building an electoral base in regions-- cities, states-- and projecting that influence nationally.

a green party president cannot win today but a green mayor could. maybe a green governor. then elect a couple of senators & build an electoral block

[pantophobia]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

well no, in the u.s. only about 36% of eligible voters vote, and we get crummy candidates.

if people truly mobilized to vote, politicians would be more careful about catering to the whole population. if voting was mandatory for example.

well even that is hard to say and how a population thinks, the recent French elections, over 85% of the voting population turned out, and Nicolas Sarkozy still won both rounds

i remember back 4 years ago that who ever won the democratic ticket would win the election and kick the incumbent out, but what happens, the far right camp mobilized stronger then the left and they won, so much is on the population itself perpetuating it's own decline

[pantophobia]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

pantophobia -- i think the problem with 3rd parties here is their electoral strategy, they all want to elect presidents without an ounce of congressional support.

green libertarian and other parties would be better off building an electoral base in regions-- cities, states-- and projecting that influence nationally.

a green party president cannot win today but a green mayor could. maybe a green governor. then elect a couple of senators & build an electoral block

indeed, remember when Matt Gonzalez almost beat Gavin Newsome in the runoff election in San Francisco? I think the Greens have lost a lot of focus when they decied it was best to try to boost David Cobb as their new face and presidential candidate, i don't think they have really recovered from such a blow at this point, but some places can certainly elect a green for mayor or on school boards and so on

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pantophobia

well even that is hard to say and how a population thinks, the recent French elections, over 85% of the voting population turned out, and Nicolas Sarkozy still won both rounds

i remember back 4 years ago that who ever won the democratic ticket would win the election and kick the incumbent out, but what happens, the far right camp mobilized stronger then the left and they won, so much is on the population itself perpetuating it's own decline

well i think they voted sarkozy for a reason, or a number of reasons, namely
1) they have a stagnand economy that's losing competitiveness
2) they have a high standard of living but also high unemployment
3) whats her name offered more of the same, government-created jobs, etc-- more "tax and spend".
4) free enterprise has a problem with socialistic france, and a lot of french managers and entrepreneurs go to england or the u..s. to start businesses, which feeds the unemployment cycle and dependence of government funds, but government funds come from the tax payers who are unemployed etc.
5) many french see islam as a threat because france is not a "multicultural" nation-- it's not about race, it's about "being french" and many muslims refuse to adapt. and they think sarkozy might be the answer to that. i dont know.

regardless, you need to think about this, france has a lot of parties represented in their senate and the national assembly, so those 85% of people also elected legislators of all kinds.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pantophobia

indeed, remember when Matt Gonzalez almost beat Gavin Newsome in the runoff election in San Francisco? I think the Greens have lost a lot of focus when they decied it was best to try to boost David Cobb as their new face and presidential candidate, i don't think they have really recovered from such a blow at this point, but some places can certainly elect a green for mayor or on school boards and so on

yes, you build a grassroots and then reach for the top. but the way they proceed, they are nothing but a joke, because it's obvious they can't win. get some 3rd party candidates in congress to start changing the political lanscape. it will take time.

see, if perot har ran w/ a platform of senators and congresspeople, his "party" mgiht still be alive. instead he chose to run with some inarticulate admiral and that was the end of that firecracker. fzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

[pantophobia]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

well i think they voted sarkozy for a reason, or a number of reasons, namely
1) they have a stagnand economy that's losing competitiveness
2) they have a high standard of living but also high unemployment
3) whats her name offered more of the same, government-created jobs, etc-- more "tax and spend".
4) free enterprise has a problem with socialistic france, and a lot of french managers and entrepreneurs go to england or the u..s. to start businesses, which feeds the unemployment cycle and dependence of government funds, but government funds come from the tax payers who are unemployed etc.
5) many french see islam as a threat because france is not a "multicultural" nation-- it's not about race, it's about "being french" and many muslims refuse to adapt. and they think sarkozy might be the answer to that. i dont know.

regardless, you need to think about this, france has a lot of parties represented in their senate and the national assembly, so those 85% of people also elected legislators of all kinds.

oh i know that, i know they have one of the stronger third party presences of the major countries

outside of the economic factors there is a nationalist sense about Sarkozy, seemingly trying to woo some votes away from Le-Pen with his views on immigration and religion, sort of the way the Demycrats took alot of the Green ideals into their party position to get their votes, even some Republicans are becoming environmentally conscious

[!@#$%!]

yes the problem w/ democrats & republicans is they absorb the fringes and dilute them.

hey man i have to leave the internet but i enjoy your posts so please write away! looking forward to your well-informed posts.