posted
The greater sense of urgency, the streamlining of most things.... Cut down on he 'red' tape, reprimand or terminate those that end up going on power trips..
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
As I noted before, the fact that people are willing to forgo civil liberties and actually democratically discussing how things should be done...in favour of getting stuff done quickly, because its "worth it."
But how do you simulate that without a war? And more importantly, would you want to?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
OK, new approach to the whole random selection thing. Say there are two senators from each state. Pick TEN random people from the pool, and have them answer an extensive series of questions about their positions and beliefs. The people then place those ten in order from most to least preferable, and the top two have to serve.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
And even then, it wouldn't work: candidates could undergo rigorous training by people behind the scenes on what answers to give, in order to ensure that those special interests get someone sympathetic to themselves in.
Before hand you have to ban pro-this and pro-that advertising, as to have no undue influence...
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Well, since the PEOPLE are the ones putting them in order according to preferance...
Before hand you have to ban pro-this and pro-that advertising, as to have no undue influence...
Now I wouldn't see anything wrong with advertizing for ideas. So long as it's advertizing for IDEAS, not the people who support them.
Even better: how 'bout we select our ten people, have them take the tests, and then have people vote based on their opinions on the issues? Then the two who best match those opinions are selected. No names released to the public at all.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why bother to have people vote at all? Do it with computers, match candidate opinions up with those of the public, taken by poll and collated electronically.
posted
Hmm... this randomness thing, while still attractive, is bugging me to some degree. This idea of placing cantidates in order of preference, however, is looking more and more cool. Say we eliminate the electoral college, and have all elections decided based on which cantidate got the most "points". It'd kill the two-party system, and make other cantidates far more viable. I know it'd make ME vote for cantidates that I actually agree with, instead of ones that I simply see as the lesser evil. Any objections?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, you seem to be moving further and further away from randomness, and are just adding complexity and politics to a simple system.....mostly in an effort to eliminate problems specific to the current US system. I have a feeling you'd be happier working from a different starting point.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
We're now seeing the ultimate problem with all political hypothesizing: people always favour the idea that's going to put them on top. In the UK the Liberal Democrats (even in some of their previous incarnations) favoured proportional representation because it would lead to election results more fairly representing the actual voting of the population as a whole. The fact that it would have brought them pretty close to being the number 2 party, and hence becoming Her Majesty's Opposition, was purely coincidental. Now, since 1997, they've made it to within a smidgeon of being in Opposition anyway, and all of a sudden no-one's talking PR anymore.
Anyone who talks about order of preference is working under the assumption that their preference will be right at the top of the list. That there's some great underswell of people just like them who will finally get their voice heard.
posted
So you're saying that it takes action by someone else to make you start thinking on your own?
And you get this from what I said how?
just adding complexity and politics to a simple system.....mostly in an effort to eliminate problems specific to the current US system.
If complexity makes a simple system better, well, then bring on the complexity! "Make things as simple as possible. But no simpler."
But how am I adding politics? And how are these problems specific to our system? The same problems exist in all democracies. They just "solve" them by suppressing the advertizing and such, even though this still leaves the problem of the people only having two real choices. I'm looking for a solution that doesn't violate my basic principles, AND solves the real problem.
But if you have a better basic system, please, do tell.
Anyone who talks about order of preference is working under the assumption that their preference will be right at the top of the list. That there's some great underswell of people just like them who will finally get their voice heard.
That's rather cynical. It's also rather true. Yeah, a lot of people like me will get their full opinions finally heard: people who vote! This has nothing to do with my ideological leanings, this is about my pragmatic leanings. I'm looking for a system that works better than what we have, where peoples' opinions actually count for something, and I think that this is it.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic