Well, the barriers to entry with the existing system are high. Do you agree with this? If so, why? If not, how do you propose to change it within the existing system?
Dependance on the Republicrats to endanger their own duopoly is nothing short of foolish, and certainly its difficult to argue that a third party needs to get 15% on polls, massive amounts of signatures in each state, huge amounts of cash, etc.... You may advocate a grass-roots effort. Thats exactly what the green and libertarian parties are doing. How fast/easy has that been?
Of course, you left the fallback statement that such a party must be interesting to the broad majority of people. Well, yes, they must. However, if none of them are, then surely you have no objection to IRV/Concordant/Approval, as nothing would change. However, the most obvious barrier to entry, the reluctance of people to "waste votes" would be removed. How could this be a bad thing?
As for simplicity...its difficult to argue that Approval is complicated, though its certainly more valid against some forms. I would consider Approval voting a vast improvement, for one.
Winner-take-all forces them to appeal to a broader voter base? How? Youve already dismissed NY and CA as anomalitys, but I suggest that they are a serious effect that occurs everywhere, but is simply most pronounced there. Without it, surely they would be required to appeal to everyone within the state. Broader indeed.
I see merely arguements against change because, well, this seems to work good enough, and change is scary. Im guessing you vote republican.
I fear an abolition of it would make voter fraud easier, further disempower the states, and cause, as you said, recounts to cause mass havoc. The slight negatives are an acceptable cost.
Actually, on second though, I'll be urging my congressman to vote for IRV. Not because I like it, or think its a good system. I don't believe they'll pass it, but I do want support expressed for alternate voting systems. I'll be sure to mention approval voting in my call(s) as well.
The electoral college does need to remove winner take all...but this aint gonna solve that.
And why, oh why, did they choose IRV? Possibly one of the worst systems they could have chosen. Alright, you could make an arguement that it might be better than the current system, but its vastly inferior to concordent(which is unfortunately complex) and my personal favorite, Approval Voting.
On the bright side, Im glad people are taking note of this, though I fear this will be used as a reason to ignore other pushes for election reform.
Many geeks were heard to exclaim "Hell yes!" in concert. Someone commented that "corrolation/= causation", so we don't really know why they did it, but certain individuals have been seen waving banners claiming "warez rulz", Informations want Freeness" and one person proclaiming "Bush sucks".
As a result of your ability to grasp basic logic, and then accusing others of same, your posting priveleges and breathing rights have been revoked. Continuation of such is in violation of L-4678-B, often known as Catch 22. Have a nice rest of your life.
I love these drastic studies... Sure, it might make sense for people to do that, but since when has the general population had more than two brain cells in use at a time?
I predict painfully slow progress in robotics, and a vast increase in tech support when they first become prevailent.
It takes a while for beauracracy to set in for governments, generally. Given enough time, the Israeli gov will probably have issues too.
The many parties should help with that though... Unfortunately we dont have this luxury.
You do have a more statistically likey security threat than us as well.
That came across abit much like flamebait... Sorry, just the bitterness.
Heres the nice version. We all know the quote from benjjie, and its certainly true. Every time the politicians can scare a fair number of the population, theres a massive freedom grab. Wake up people..the odds of dying to a terrorist attack in america is incredibly small. And no, I dont care what terror alert the base is on, or what color terrorist threat it is...
What risk of dying, per year is enough to yield freedom to avoid? 1/100, 1/100,000? We certainly havent hit either of those...
Nobody else generally is, unless its an installation that handles classified stuff. Besides, generally the protesters are outside the base.
Its a logical conclusion really...I can imagine a massive crowd waiting behind two detectors for someone to find their change. Not to mention the liberty issue.
Us libertarians are most certainly not claiming that the reason this program is bad is the "lack of oversight". But, since you claim its all the private sectors fault...why should the government be blamed, after all? They merely threw massive amounts of cash at them. Should we expect them to ensure the money is used responsibly too?
Now, for the libertarian point of view. Screw the government managing our tax money, and certainly dont let the government distribute it to corporations. The more hands the money goes through, the more of it dissapears. Now, you might have an arguement that this was rather sudden...I doubt many libertarians demand that 95% of the government dissapear in a month...but, it should be phased out, and oversight in the meantime to minimize the graft is quite reasonable.
Im really stretching for something to post here. Ive got three more hours of "work" ahead, and Im outta stuff to read on/. This is new, and I love politics, but it just aint doin it.
Its not just the website, which didn't exactly exude professionalism. Im used to less than perfect web design.... I do work for the government after all. It's not even the obvious promotion of a canidate that looses my intrest. Ive grown used to the crazy stuff that happens every four years here.
Its the sheer emptiness of it all. He fought in Vietnam. Great. Lots of people did, and while Im not trying to put down what they did, and hes done far more than Bush, we've all heard about it already. But really, who cares? Its nice that he did that, but it doesnt distinguish him as a leader from among the number of men who've also risked their lives.
I want interesting debate, non-evasive comments, and a lot less pointless "image-building", dammit. Bah, theres no room in society for intelligent people any more...
The two-level tuition scheme is quite common, actually. This isnt about endorsing college policies, but rather, about spending government cash to support partisan efforts.
Im sure the 3rd party debates would have allowed the rep/dem canidates to partake.
A social game, I'll give you that...however, leadership? Come on, surely you dont believe these two canidates are the best possible leaders. Its all about public image.
Also, how is this holding the debates hostage? Surely you dont think the main two parties would just decide, oops, we wont have the debates. That would probably cause an uproar and far more attention being focused on the libertarian arguement by the general public. No, it'll go on.
Intimidation tactic. More hyperbole. I highly doubt the Libertarians are capable of intimidating the major parties into changing stances. Id worry far more about the reverse, if anything.
Now, why couldnt they represent you by pointing out government misuse of funds? Its obviously drastically against libertarian principles, and Id feel much less represented if they simply chose to overlook it so no one will get upset.
Theres not many actual parties out there...If you just kept the two first requirements, I doubt you'd clear six canidates. Certainly that should be a small enough number to permit the traditional "extended discussion" of 30 sec and so on for the few questions asked.
I don't see a reason to create a law for it at all. Sure, none of us want others snooping through our mail... encryption exists for a reason. Also, if a company gets a reputation for snooping in customers mail, what do you think that will do for their business?
This is really sad...I'd love to see a good debate for once... Id actually watch these, as opposed to the mainstream debates, which I mocked for about ten minutes before being booed out of the room.
One of these days, Im going to get fairly active in politics, probably libertarian.
Bullshit he does. He just wants more equality in who goes to war... These volunteers come in large part from lower-middle class to poor families. How would I know? Im one of them. Most of us that are intelligent enough to think about it, would like the idea of everyone having an equal chance of serving. Not that I actually think a draft would work for this, but the concept is interesting.
It would suck to die in a foriegn war that you are pretty much not allowed to protest or take any part in deciding for, while those who can, dont risk their lives.
Heresy, I know, but I, for one, am quite happy with my X-box as it came to me... Ive got plenty of real computers sitting around my house, and I gotta have something to play Fable on.
Absolutely correct. More military force is the last think needed against what is essentially grillia warefare(in Iraq), and a massive search mission for Al Queda, which is more suited for police than for military in some respects, seeing as how we dont specialize in detective work.
Grandparent was nothing more than optimistic, unfounded crap of the level Id expect to hear from one of our trusted government officials.
Most the questions are biased one way or the other, too easy to dodge by spouting bullshit, or just plain pointless. I chose the least crappy ones, in hopes that my small vote would help negate the opinion of some 12 yr old out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Dependance on the Republicrats to endanger their own duopoly is nothing short of foolish, and certainly its difficult to argue that a third party needs to get 15% on polls, massive amounts of signatures in each state, huge amounts of cash, etc.... You may advocate a grass-roots effort. Thats exactly what the green and libertarian parties are doing. How fast/easy has that been?
Of course, you left the fallback statement that such a party must be interesting to the broad majority of people. Well, yes, they must. However, if none of them are, then surely you have no objection to IRV/Concordant/Approval, as nothing would change. However, the most obvious barrier to entry, the reluctance of people to "waste votes" would be removed. How could this be a bad thing?
As for simplicity...its difficult to argue that Approval is complicated, though its certainly more valid against some forms. I would consider Approval voting a vast improvement, for one.
Winner-take-all forces them to appeal to a broader voter base? How? Youve already dismissed NY and CA as anomalitys, but I suggest that they are a serious effect that occurs everywhere, but is simply most pronounced there. Without it, surely they would be required to appeal to everyone within the state. Broader indeed.
I see merely arguements against change because, well, this seems to work good enough, and change is scary. Im guessing you vote republican.
Actually, on second though, I'll be urging my congressman to vote for IRV. Not because I like it, or think its a good system. I don't believe they'll pass it, but I do want support expressed for alternate voting systems. I'll be sure to mention approval voting in my call(s) as well.
The electoral college does need to remove winner take all...but this aint gonna solve that.
And why, oh why, did they choose IRV? Possibly one of the worst systems they could have chosen. Alright, you could make an arguement that it might be better than the current system, but its vastly inferior to concordent(which is unfortunately complex) and my personal favorite, Approval Voting.
On the bright side, Im glad people are taking note of this, though I fear this will be used as a reason to ignore other pushes for election reform.
Many geeks were heard to exclaim "Hell yes!" in concert. Someone commented that "corrolation /= causation", so we don't really know why they did it, but certain individuals have been seen waving banners claiming "warez rulz", Informations want Freeness" and one person proclaiming "Bush sucks".
As a result of your ability to grasp basic logic, and then accusing others of same, your posting priveleges and breathing rights have been revoked. Continuation of such is in violation of L-4678-B, often known as Catch 22. Have a nice rest of your life.
Dept of Stupidity Eradication
I predict painfully slow progress in robotics, and a vast increase in tech support when they first become prevailent.
Oh, and some of its expiring. So? Its ok to loose liberty as long as you are told you'll get it back eventually?
The many parties should help with that though... Unfortunately we dont have this luxury. You do have a more statistically likey security threat than us as well.
Heres the nice version. We all know the quote from benjjie, and its certainly true. Every time the politicians can scare a fair number of the population, theres a massive freedom grab. Wake up people..the odds of dying to a terrorist attack in america is incredibly small. And no, I dont care what terror alert the base is on, or what color terrorist threat it is...
What risk of dying, per year is enough to yield freedom to avoid? 1/100, 1/100,000? We certainly havent hit either of those...
Its a logical conclusion really...I can imagine a massive crowd waiting behind two detectors for someone to find their change. Not to mention the liberty issue.
Glad someone finally figured it out... Does this mean they'll be getting rid of the real threats to our freedom, like the Patriot Act and Bush?
Now, for the libertarian point of view. Screw the government managing our tax money, and certainly dont let the government distribute it to corporations. The more hands the money goes through, the more of it dissapears. Now, you might have an arguement that this was rather sudden...I doubt many libertarians demand that 95% of the government dissapear in a month...but, it should be phased out, and oversight in the meantime to minimize the graft is quite reasonable.
Its not just the website, which didn't exactly exude professionalism. Im used to less than perfect web design.... I do work for the government after all. It's not even the obvious promotion of a canidate that looses my intrest. Ive grown used to the crazy stuff that happens every four years here.
Its the sheer emptiness of it all. He fought in Vietnam. Great. Lots of people did, and while Im not trying to put down what they did, and hes done far more than Bush, we've all heard about it already. But really, who cares? Its nice that he did that, but it doesnt distinguish him as a leader from among the number of men who've also risked their lives.
I want interesting debate, non-evasive comments, and a lot less pointless "image-building", dammit. Bah, theres no room in society for intelligent people any more...
This bitter diatribe brought to you by Tyndmyr
Im sure the 3rd party debates would have allowed the rep/dem canidates to partake.
Also, how is this holding the debates hostage? Surely you dont think the main two parties would just decide, oops, we wont have the debates. That would probably cause an uproar and far more attention being focused on the libertarian arguement by the general public. No, it'll go on.
Intimidation tactic. More hyperbole. I highly doubt the Libertarians are capable of intimidating the major parties into changing stances. Id worry far more about the reverse, if anything.
Now, why couldnt they represent you by pointing out government misuse of funds? Its obviously drastically against libertarian principles, and Id feel much less represented if they simply chose to overlook it so no one will get upset.
Theres not many actual parties out there...If you just kept the two first requirements, I doubt you'd clear six canidates. Certainly that should be a small enough number to permit the traditional "extended discussion" of 30 sec and so on for the few questions asked.
Not that it makes much statistical difference in presidential sized elections.
Totalitarianism can be quite stable.
Let the free market deal with it.
One of these days, Im going to get fairly active in politics, probably libertarian.
Well, thats great, I just wish I lived in such an area. Dang.... Oh well, I'll be voting Lib during the upcoming election...
It would suck to die in a foriegn war that you are pretty much not allowed to protest or take any part in deciding for, while those who can, dont risk their lives.
Heres to keepin' it simple!
Grandparent was nothing more than optimistic, unfounded crap of the level Id expect to hear from one of our trusted government officials.
Still, I couldnt find ten I liked.