Have you heard of ICBMs? How about long-range bombers?
Let me pick on this one. Libertarians and Harry Browne are all for a strong ICBM/missle defense system, and any system that can destroy a warhead flying at 20,000mph can take out a long range bomber. Again, how do having troops stationed in 100 countries across the globe protect us any better against the threats you mentioned?
Ok, let's take the Gulf War - I'm all for ELIMINATING dictators who use force against others. You want to know how Harry Browne has said he'd handle it. Quite simple, he'd give an ultimatum to Saddam to get out of Kuwait or he'd put a price on Saddam's head....say $1 billion to the country or organization that could 'off' him. I can tell you Saddam would think twice or he'd be dead. Instead of the United States killing a few hundred thousand Iraqis who happened to be following orders (on penalty of getting shot for disobedience) we would have killed the one person responsible. Instead of wasting hundreds of billions in a war we'd spend only a billion. Instead of continue to have Saddam as a thorn in our side, he'd be gone. Why do we continue to punish the citizens on a country like Iraq with sanctions instead of punishing the sole individual (Saddam) who is responsible?
RM 101, if your so much for prevention what in the current system is preventing a ICBM attack on the US? What prevented Saddam from invading Kuwait? What prevented Milosivec from slaughtering tens of thousands? That's right...nothing did!!
It's government owned land that is being strip-mined and clear-cut. How do you explain that? The government has been bought by these corporations and they allow the corporations to abuse government owned land.
I can guarantee you if the Sierra Club started buying up the government owned land in the Pacific NW clear cutting would end right away!
People always think the government is the solution, but they are part of the problem. Take for instance the artic drilling so recently discussed in the debates, that would happen on FEDERAL land. Do you think if the 'Coalition for cute fuzzy animals' owned that land we'd even be having this discussion? HECK NO!
Now the only question I have is how do you prevent 'big oil' from buying all the land instead of the Sierra club? If you truly want the market rate, everyone has to bid. If you exclude oil from bidding you won't get a 1/5th of the value. Of course I don't have the answer, but I know the gov't ain't it.
What your describing is Anarchy, NOT libertarianism.
Your neighbor has the right to OWN a howitzer, but does not have the right to threaten you with it, he does not have the right to use it against you, nor does he have the right to fire it all night keeping you awake. The MAIN tenant of libertarianism is that individuals do not have the power to use force or fraud against others, that the ONLY acceptable application of government power is to stop those using force or fraud.
No, you do not have the right to fire a gun at someone. That is using force against another individual.
No, privitization of police and fire deparments is not on the LP platform. Police serve an important role in libertarianism, to deter and punish indivuals who use force or fraud. Fire departments pose no problem as long as they are paid for at the local level of government as in the current system. Nobody is suggesting privitizing fire departments, just like nobody is suggesting federalizing fire departments.
As soon as the Mexicans and Canadians start raising a modern military by all means we should keep ahead of them. Beyond that it's a national OFFENSE. Why do we still have troops defending Germany? Japan? The Phillipines? Why? That's defending OTHER nations, not the US. Make the citizens of those countries pay for the defense, not the US.
Gold Standard?? Haven't heard Harry Browne or anyone else suggesting we go back to it. Regardless, regulating the value of money IS a constitutional federal power (Article 1 Section 8).
People complain how they hate the way Wal-Mart censors the music they sell....but those are the same people who drove their independent record store down the street out of business when they started buying at Wal-Mart.
Unfortunately right now everyone is in a bottom-dollar way of thinking.
You don't like the way the CPD froze out 3rd party candidates? Call AT&T and cancel your long distance and tell them why! Call up Palm (3com) and tell them you are boycotting their product (along with handspring and every other company that uses the palmOS)! Call up US Air and tell them you are flying other airlines! Call up Anheuser-Busch and tell them you are no longer buying their products and tell the grocery store manager where you shop you aren't buying their products!
Today people complain about corporations but continue to buy their and use their products! I know because I've done! It takes balls to cancel that great rate you have with AT&T, or not to drink your favoriate beer, or buy a different car...but its the only way changes get made! One consumer at a time!
Current polls have Bush/Gore getting roughly 45%. With less than 50% of the registered voters voting, that is roughly 22-23% of registered voters.
All it would take is one out of four registered voters to cast a vote for one of these guys. Your vote CAN make a difference, but only if you use it. I will bet that 25% of registered supporters will be more than enough to defeat Bush or Gore this year, but it isn't going to happen:(
And we aren't counting citizens elligible to vote, but not registered.
Taxes: Perhaps you should talk about the Gore Family connection to Occidental Oil? Al Gore helped Occidental Oil with the $3.6BILLION privitization of the Elk Hills Reservers. As for Bush, I won't say what he did is right, but many folks who make money don't rip off the public to do it. Maybe if we stoped giving politicians the ability to spend trillions of tax money the advantage of the rich would be reduced. Where do you think the $100million in local taxes came from to pay for that stadium? It was from average folks like you, me and the previous poster. If we deny them our money, we remove the power to abuse us in favor of the rich. It's a two way street, if we allow them to tax the rich, they tax all of us and generally use it to favor their rich friends. BTW - Both Al and George are top 1% who have been raised with a silver spoon.
Social Secuirty - My dad makes $100k a year and just drew his first Social Security check. Gee...what a great program, eh!? As for your friends that are investing ~30k/year, if they earn 10% return over 30 years they would have $2.5 million if its a taxable account, or $5million if its in a tax free account. Maybe they are living miserably right now because they understand the power of compound interest. (at 15% those numbers are $4.3million and $13million). BTW - Take a look at the taxable vs tax free accounts and tell me if taxes help the 'middle' class or not?
Abortion - Other than politicians like Al Gore and George W...I don't know anyone who has changed their mind via discussion of the issues. Generally people change when they have a religous event happen or actually encounter situations where they have to make a personally decision on it. Regardless I don't think politicians should legislate on the matter, nor should they use my tax money to pay for low-income abortions.
Gun Control - The 2nd was not 'added', it was part of the BILL OF RIGHTS without which many states would not have ratified the constitution. I won't argue what the founders meant with the second amendment but it CLEARLY states 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. There is a clear process to amend the constitution. If you want to take away guns, FINE. Seek a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd. I have no problems with folks calling for a repeal, but ignoring the constitution (and getting away with it) is not the way to things.
Vouchers - rich people already have them. Its called moving into an exclusive suburban neighborhood where inflated home prices keep out the riff-raff. Why do you think the #1 issue among home buyers is 'WHAT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS IT IN!'. The folks who have enough income to move into the good school districts have choice and they exercise it. You think I'm wrong? Try and sell a house that is in the school district of a failing school! You'd better hope the buyer has no children and never plans on having children. FYI - I'm against vouchers just because I KNOW once private schools start taking gov't money the gov't will start to mandate cirriculum and policies to those private schools.
Well...actually they make me want to Browne;) but it's not as good a slogan.
A quote from Browne's website asking if he can 'win'. If your a Nader supporter change it to dealing with the Environment, Corporate Power and Healthcare. Clinton/Gore haven't done much in the past 8 years? why will Gore in the next 4? Remember your not voting for this election (its already decided Bush/Gore) your voting for the next one in 2004 or the one in 2008.
Can I win?
Probably not. But if you vote for anyone else, you won't win either. Your candidate might win, but you won't get what you want. Government will continue to get bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, and more oppressive -- and you will have given your approval to this.
No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore -- to keep Al Gore out of the White House or to ward off the Religious Right -- your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of every big-government proposal your candidate has made.
Even though we Libertarians may not win this year, every vote I get will be an endorsement, a statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller government. No one can misinterpret a vote for me as a vote for more government.
And if I get even one million votes, it could change politics in America forever. It could cause the press to pay more attention to smaller-government proposals, it could encourage other voters to abandon the big-government parties, and it could attract millions of non-voters who have given up on any hope of getting smaller government.
Please don't let the old parties destroy your future by scaring you into voting against someone this year.
Raise your sights. Vote in a way that could lead to a free America with a constitutional government before the end of this decade.
For once, vote for yourself instead of a politician. Vote for freedom.
Actually 'post roads' are a constitutionaly granted power;) Now I'm sure we could argue about the definition of 'post roads', but I'm sure you could constitutional fund a national highway system to transport the mail!:)
Article I - Section 8.
'To establish Post Offices and post Roads;'
7 of the 9 judges on the current court ARE republican appointments and they aren't overturning Roe v. Wade anytime soon. Additionaly two of the three judges Bush has appointed in Texas are pro abortion rights. Not exactly the radical right wing record most would expect.
What I don't understand is how folks can say they don't want Bush appointing judges, but Gore is OK? WTF? Neither clearly understand the constitution and neither will appoint judges who will limit the federal government to its constitutional powers.
The Supreme Court Scam - by Harry Browne
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
The Supreme Court Scam, By Harry Browne. I really don't think Gore or Bush will be keeping the Constitution in mind when picking Supreme Court justices.
If you look at the three justices Bush has appointed two turned out to be pro abortion rights. None of the three have been particularly 'conservative' let alone 'ultra-conservatice'.
Actually, a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. Bush must get more votes than Gore in order to win. The best analogy you can make is a Vote for Nader is the same as not voting. Since you aren't helping Bush or Gore your not voting. What a useless way of looking at things.
BTW - The lesser of two evils is still an evil. Cast a vote for what you think is good, not evil (unless you consider yourself evil, then by all means don't vote for good)
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
States pass laws stating how their electors vote. For example, my native North Carolina requires electors to vote for the plurality winner of the statewide vote. Failure to do so nulifies your status as an elector, your vote never counts and you are replaced. In Nebraska 2 electors (representing their Senators) vote for the plurality winner of the statewide vote while the three remaining electors represent the plurality winner in each of their three US House districts.
The only law on the books requiring a certain method in state elections for federal office is the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires single member districts be used to elect the US House. Numerous attempts to change this federal law have failed, most recently H.R. 1173
1992 Clinton with 43% popular and 69% electoral
1912 Wilson with 41.8% popular and 82% electoral!!!!
1860 Lincoln with 39.9% popular and 59% electoral
1824 Adams with 29.8% popular and 32% electoral
The Man,
Actually IRV will appear on the ballot in as an intiative in Alaska in 2002 and Vermont and New Mexico are seriously considering IRV. In those cases very strong Green parties are helping elect Republicans in what would otherwise be heavily Democratic states. If Greens really want change they need to let Bush win Oregon and Washington with a strong turnout for Nader and cost Gore the election. Or even imagine California going to Bush because Nader gets 15% of the vote. I guarentee you residents of those states would strongly consider IRV for the 2004 election. Ditto in states where Libertarians can swing the election. John Q Public needs to be shocked by electing who he likes least. Once that happens the road to election reforms begins.
BTW - Modern Technology makes IRV and other more 'complicated' counting methods as easy as changing your counting algorithm. It's a shame we don't use modern technology to assist our elections, after all we don't do math on a slide-rule anymore (even though I do own one for nostalgia)! (just wanted to inject some techno stuff since this is/. ):P
Anyone interested in the Electoral College and alternate voting and/or election methods should check out The Center for Voting and Democracy
The have a lot of great information on alternative voting methods including those listed in the Discover article, but in much more detail.
Al Gore: George Bush is a liar. Vote for him and the good times will stop.
GW Bush: Al Gore is a liar. Vote for him and his big government will tell you when you can use the restroom.
John Q. Public: Sheesh...two liars, who if elected will ruin my life. Guess I'll forget to vote yet again!
"Government is really good at only one thing, and that is to break your leg, then hand you a crutch and say, 'Look, if it weren't for the government you wouldn't be able to walk,'" - Harry Browne
I attended NCSU from '92 to '97 and used MacOS, Winblows, Dectrix, HPUX, Solaris and Linux as far as I can remember.
State has and will always be (hopefully) a unix shop, but even when they standardized on various operating systems there was always something that required one OS or the other. I think the systems folks that run EOS/Unity do a FABULOUS job keeping everything humming along. I never really had respect for the job they did at State until I got out in the real world and realized how screwed up most corporate networks are!
As for blessing a language...I took classes in Java, C++, perl and smalltalk while at State. Granted they do tend to 'prefer' one or the other but they do allow you to choose as you see fit. However the responsibility is on the student to sign up for those classes.
The comment came as a government watchdog--the Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAlC)--announced that the reliability and relevance of the genetic test for Huntington's Disease is sufficient for insurance companies to use the result when assessing applications for life insurance.
www.fairvote.org is a GREAT resource for anyone interested in election reform.
I would LOVE to see Instant Runoff Voting implemented instead of the current plurality voting. I continualy 'waste' my vote on third party candidates, but I'm one of those that won't vote for the lesser of two evils.
I'd also love to see Cummulative Voting or Proportional Representation take over for single member district voting. It would be nice to elect my elected officials, instead of them choosing me when they gerrymander districts.
I've asked the question of electoral reform to every local official running and so far only the libertarians seem to believe in answering e-mail and they are for reform.
NOTE: Of course the minor parties are on the outside looking in and thus want change, while those who feel served by the current process don't want to change. Only in the cases noted (namely Vermont, New Mex and Washington) is change being sought because a strong Green party is helping elect Republican after Republican. (LOL! those are the last folks strong greens would vote for!)
I posed a similar question on this thread, Electoral Reform: Instant Runoffs (shameless self plug trying to get someone to mod it up *sniff*)
Two Pass voting is great, but Instant Runoff Voting (aka Preference Voting) is an easier, quicker and cheaper method of getting things done.
If you really want to learn more about alternative voting and election methods take a look at www.fairvote.org. It's quite shocking to find out that America is one of three 'Major' democracies not to have some form of proportional representation at a national level (Jamaica and Canada are the other two).
It's really a shame that the issue of Election Reform (as opposed to Campaign Reform) gets so little press. It's also a reason few even bother voting when the system is rigged in favor of those already in power.
PS. There are other threads dealing specifically with the Electoral College, but not any dealing with general election reform. Correct me if I'm wrong...I'd love to read them:)
This is a two part question. Part one is on the subject of Election Reform in general, and part two is concerning a particular piece of legislation (HR 1173).
Part One: As I'm sure you are aware citizens are becoming alarmlingly disiterested in participating in our Republic. Many point to Single Member Districts and Plurality Elections as a prime culprit. In many cases you live in a lopsided district that is heavily Republican or Democrat and feel that your vote isn't 'heard' due to you voting with a minority in your district. This applies to lowest level in City and School Board races up to the way districts are drawn for the US House.
What is your stance on election reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting (or Prefrence Boting) for winner take all elections (Mayorial, Gubernatorial and Presidential Races) and Cummulative Voting or Proportional Representation to fill out City Councils or National and State Congresses?
Part Two: I am a resident in North Carolina and the recent court cases challenging our 1st and 12th Congressional Districts prompted my research into electoral reform. Representatives Watts' and Clayton's (from NC's 1st and 12th districts) sponsored HR 1173 to allow the States to use alternatives to Single Member districts. Do you support or oppose their legislation?
Slashdot Mirror
Let me pick on this one. Libertarians and Harry Browne are all for a strong ICBM/missle defense system, and any system that can destroy a warhead flying at 20,000mph can take out a long range bomber. Again, how do having troops stationed in 100 countries across the globe protect us any better against the threats you mentioned?
Ok, let's take the Gulf War - I'm all for ELIMINATING dictators who use force against others. You want to know how Harry Browne has said he'd handle it. Quite simple, he'd give an ultimatum to Saddam to get out of Kuwait or he'd put a price on Saddam's head....say $1 billion to the country or organization that could 'off' him. I can tell you Saddam would think twice or he'd be dead. Instead of the United States killing a few hundred thousand Iraqis who happened to be following orders (on penalty of getting shot for disobedience) we would have killed the one person responsible. Instead of wasting hundreds of billions in a war we'd spend only a billion. Instead of continue to have Saddam as a thorn in our side, he'd be gone. Why do we continue to punish the citizens on a country like Iraq with sanctions instead of punishing the sole individual (Saddam) who is responsible?
RM 101, if your so much for prevention what in the current system is preventing a ICBM attack on the US? What prevented Saddam from invading Kuwait? What prevented Milosivec from slaughtering tens of thousands? That's right...nothing did!!
I can guarantee you if the Sierra Club started buying up the government owned land in the Pacific NW clear cutting would end right away!
People always think the government is the solution, but they are part of the problem. Take for instance the artic drilling so recently discussed in the debates, that would happen on FEDERAL land. Do you think if the 'Coalition for cute fuzzy animals' owned that land we'd even be having this discussion? HECK NO!
Now the only question I have is how do you prevent 'big oil' from buying all the land instead of the Sierra club? If you truly want the market rate, everyone has to bid. If you exclude oil from bidding you won't get a 1/5th of the value. Of course I don't have the answer, but I know the gov't ain't it.
Your neighbor has the right to OWN a howitzer, but does not have the right to threaten you with it, he does not have the right to use it against you, nor does he have the right to fire it all night keeping you awake. The MAIN tenant of libertarianism is that individuals do not have the power to use force or fraud against others, that the ONLY acceptable application of government power is to stop those using force or fraud.
No, you do not have the right to fire a gun at someone. That is using force against another individual.
No, privitization of police and fire deparments is not on the LP platform. Police serve an important role in libertarianism, to deter and punish indivuals who use force or fraud. Fire departments pose no problem as long as they are paid for at the local level of government as in the current system. Nobody is suggesting privitizing fire departments, just like nobody is suggesting federalizing fire departments.
As soon as the Mexicans and Canadians start raising a modern military by all means we should keep ahead of them. Beyond that it's a national OFFENSE. Why do we still have troops defending Germany? Japan? The Phillipines? Why? That's defending OTHER nations, not the US. Make the citizens of those countries pay for the defense, not the US.
Gold Standard?? Haven't heard Harry Browne or anyone else suggesting we go back to it. Regardless, regulating the value of money IS a constitutional federal power (Article 1 Section 8).
Unfortunately right now everyone is in a bottom-dollar way of thinking.
You don't like the way the CPD froze out 3rd party candidates? Call AT&T and cancel your long distance and tell them why! Call up Palm (3com) and tell them you are boycotting their product (along with handspring and every other company that uses the palmOS)! Call up US Air and tell them you are flying other airlines! Call up Anheuser-Busch and tell them you are no longer buying their products and tell the grocery store manager where you shop you aren't buying their products!
Today people complain about corporations but continue to buy their and use their products! I know because I've done! It takes balls to cancel that great rate you have with AT&T, or not to drink your favoriate beer, or buy a different car...but its the only way changes get made! One consumer at a time!
Current polls have Bush/Gore getting roughly 45%. With less than 50% of the registered voters voting, that is roughly 22-23% of registered voters.
All it would take is one out of four registered voters to cast a vote for one of these guys. Your vote CAN make a difference, but only if you use it. I will bet that 25% of registered supporters will be more than enough to defeat Bush or Gore this year, but it isn't going to happen :(
And we aren't counting citizens elligible to vote, but not registered.
Social Secuirty - My dad makes $100k a year and just drew his first Social Security check. Gee...what a great program, eh!? As for your friends that are investing ~30k/year, if they earn 10% return over 30 years they would have $2.5 million if its a taxable account, or $5million if its in a tax free account. Maybe they are living miserably right now because they understand the power of compound interest. (at 15% those numbers are $4.3million and $13million). BTW - Take a look at the taxable vs tax free accounts and tell me if taxes help the 'middle' class or not?
Abortion - Other than politicians like Al Gore and George W...I don't know anyone who has changed their mind via discussion of the issues. Generally people change when they have a religous event happen or actually encounter situations where they have to make a personally decision on it. Regardless I don't think politicians should legislate on the matter, nor should they use my tax money to pay for low-income abortions.
Gun Control - The 2nd was not 'added', it was part of the BILL OF RIGHTS without which many states would not have ratified the constitution. I won't argue what the founders meant with the second amendment but it CLEARLY states 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. There is a clear process to amend the constitution. If you want to take away guns, FINE. Seek a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd. I have no problems with folks calling for a repeal, but ignoring the constitution (and getting away with it) is not the way to things.
Vouchers - rich people already have them. Its called moving into an exclusive suburban neighborhood where inflated home prices keep out the riff-raff. Why do you think the #1 issue among home buyers is 'WHAT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS IT IN!'. The folks who have enough income to move into the good school districts have choice and they exercise it. You think I'm wrong? Try and sell a house that is in the school district of a failing school! You'd better hope the buyer has no children and never plans on having children. FYI - I'm against vouchers just because I KNOW once private schools start taking gov't money the gov't will start to mandate cirriculum and policies to those private schools.
Enjoy,
A quote from Browne's website asking if he can 'win'. If your a Nader supporter change it to dealing with the Environment, Corporate Power and Healthcare. Clinton/Gore haven't done much in the past 8 years? why will Gore in the next 4? Remember your not voting for this election (its already decided Bush/Gore) your voting for the next one in 2004 or the one in 2008.
Article I - Section 8.
'To establish Post Offices and post Roads;'
7 of the 9 judges on the current court ARE republican appointments and they aren't overturning Roe v. Wade anytime soon. Additionaly two of the three judges Bush has appointed in Texas are pro abortion rights. Not exactly the radical right wing record most would expect.
What I don't understand is how folks can say they don't want Bush appointing judges, but Gore is OK? WTF? Neither clearly understand the constitution and neither will appoint judges who will limit the federal government to its constitutional powers.
If you look at the three justices Bush has appointed two turned out to be pro abortion rights. None of the three have been particularly 'conservative' let alone 'ultra-conservatice'.
Actually, a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. Bush must get more votes than Gore in order to win. The best analogy you can make is a Vote for Nader is the same as not voting. Since you aren't helping Bush or Gore your not voting. What a useless way of looking at things.
BTW - The lesser of two evils is still an evil. Cast a vote for what you think is good, not evil (unless you consider yourself evil, then by all means don't vote for good)
The only law on the books requiring a certain method in state elections for federal office is the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires single member districts be used to elect the US House. Numerous attempts to change this federal law have failed, most recently H.R. 1173
1992 Clinton with 43% popular and 69% electoral
1912 Wilson with 41.8% popular and 82% electoral!!!!
1860 Lincoln with 39.9% popular and 59% electoral
1824 Adams with 29.8% popular and 32% electoral
The Man,
Actually IRV will appear on the ballot in as an intiative in Alaska in 2002 and Vermont and New Mexico are seriously considering IRV. In those cases very strong Green parties are helping elect Republicans in what would otherwise be heavily Democratic states. If Greens really want change they need to let Bush win Oregon and Washington with a strong turnout for Nader and cost Gore the election. Or even imagine California going to Bush because Nader gets 15% of the vote. I guarentee you residents of those states would strongly consider IRV for the 2004 election. Ditto in states where Libertarians can swing the election. John Q Public needs to be shocked by electing who he likes least. Once that happens the road to election reforms begins.
BTW - Modern Technology makes IRV and other more 'complicated' counting methods as easy as changing your counting algorithm. It's a shame we don't use modern technology to assist our elections, after all we don't do math on a slide-rule anymore (even though I do own one for nostalgia)! (just wanted to inject some techno stuff since this is /. ) :P
Anyone interested in the Electoral College and alternate voting and/or election methods should check out The Center for Voting and Democracy The have a lot of great information on alternative voting methods including those listed in the Discover article, but in much more detail.
GW Bush: Al Gore is a liar. Vote for him and his big government will tell you when you can use the restroom.
John Q. Public: Sheesh...two liars, who if elected will ruin my life. Guess I'll forget to vote yet again!
"Government is really good at only one thing, and that is to break your leg, then hand you a crutch and say, 'Look, if it weren't for the government you wouldn't be able to walk,'" - Harry Browne
State has and will always be (hopefully) a unix shop, but even when they standardized on various operating systems there was always something that required one OS or the other. I think the systems folks that run EOS/Unity do a FABULOUS job keeping everything humming along. I never really had respect for the job they did at State until I got out in the real world and realized how screwed up most corporate networks are!
As for blessing a language...I took classes in Java, C++, perl and smalltalk while at State. Granted they do tend to 'prefer' one or the other but they do allow you to choose as you see fit. However the responsibility is on the student to sign up for those classes.
I would LOVE to see Instant Runoff Voting implemented instead of the current plurality voting. I continualy 'waste' my vote on third party candidates, but I'm one of those that won't vote for the lesser of two evils.
I'd also love to see Cummulative Voting or Proportional Representation take over for single member district voting. It would be nice to elect my elected officials, instead of them choosing me when they gerrymander districts.
I've asked the question of electoral reform to every local official running and so far only the libertarians seem to believe in answering e-mail and they are for reform.
NOTE: Of course the minor parties are on the outside looking in and thus want change, while those who feel served by the current process don't want to change. Only in the cases noted (namely Vermont, New Mex and Washington) is change being sought because a strong Green party is helping elect Republican after Republican. (LOL! those are the last folks strong greens would vote for!)
Two Pass voting is great, but Instant Runoff Voting (aka Preference Voting) is an easier, quicker and cheaper method of getting things done.
If you really want to learn more about alternative voting and election methods take a look at www.fairvote.org. It's quite shocking to find out that America is one of three 'Major' democracies not to have some form of proportional representation at a national level (Jamaica and Canada are the other two).
It's really a shame that the issue of Election Reform (as opposed to Campaign Reform) gets so little press. It's also a reason few even bother voting when the system is rigged in favor of those already in power.
PS. There are other threads dealing specifically with the Electoral College, but not any dealing with general election reform. Correct me if I'm wrong...I'd love to read them :)
This is a two part question. Part one is on the subject of Election Reform in general, and part two is concerning a particular piece of legislation (HR 1173).
Part One: As I'm sure you are aware citizens are becoming alarmlingly disiterested in participating in our Republic. Many point to Single Member Districts and Plurality Elections as a prime culprit. In many cases you live in a lopsided district that is heavily Republican or Democrat and feel that your vote isn't 'heard' due to you voting with a minority in your district. This applies to lowest level in City and School Board races up to the way districts are drawn for the US House.
What is your stance on election reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting (or Prefrence Boting) for winner take all elections (Mayorial, Gubernatorial and Presidential Races) and Cummulative Voting or Proportional Representation to fill out City Councils or National and State Congresses?
Part Two: I am a resident in North Carolina and the recent court cases challenging our 1st and 12th Congressional Districts prompted my research into electoral reform. Representatives Watts' and Clayton's (from NC's 1st and 12th districts) sponsored HR 1173 to allow the States to use alternatives to Single Member districts. Do you support or oppose their legislation?
Thank you for your time.