It sounds like a good thing for Anchorage. But I'm left wondering why federal money has to be involved. It's a local, or maybe state, concern. Let Alaska pay for what benefits Alaskans.
In other words, why doesn't the fed butt out of state-level affairs? Great idea! Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and maybe we'll get back to the way it used to be.
I would say that anything approaching a fanatical belief in anything could be construed to be a mental disorder. Home schooling is permitted in Germany, but not under any/all circumstances.
To put it another way, if we weren't subsidizing corn farmers, they'd be producing less corn. Less corn means less corn syrup (and subsequent sugary beverages) and more land for other crops like vegetables (thus cheaper healthy produce).
Government routinely screws things up with its intervention. Is anyone surprised?
I was imprecise, but I think most everyone understood what I was talking about.
My question remains, how much work would it take to create a cross-toolkit API and library so that menuing could be (optionally) separated from the window? I am not a GUI developer. I don't know how much commonality there is to menuing in different toolkits, but I'd think there would be a lot.
Germany? The country whose police forcibly removed a teenager from her home because her parents dared to educate their children themselves? And ordered psych evals for the parents in order to determine if their Christian beliefs amounted to a mental disorder? And suggested that the best way to resolve the situation would be for the parents to relinquish custory of their other children?
You didn't read my post very closely, or didn't realize the implications of it. Your post primarily addresses the cost of campaigning. I said two things that directly impact this: one, that there should be more (smaller) Congressional districts; and two, that Senators should not be popularly elected. (Note that in both cases, I advocate returning to the plan the Constitution originally set out.) Both of these would significantly reduce the cost of campaigning. In the Congressional case, the total amount of money spent (nationally) may be the same, but the amount needed to run for any individual seat should be less. In the Senate case, campaigning should drop to virtually nil—the voting body has a membership of a couple dozen to maybe one hundred or so.
This is not a particularly obscure insight to achieve or particularly difficult to grasp. Yet it's amazing how few people realize this.
I think the media has a huge impact in reinforcing this perspective. A one-dimensional two-sided debate is easy to cover, and makes for good ratings. The more parties you throw in the mix, the less predictable news reporting becomes. And then they might have to, you know, work at it.
In the ways that matter they are the same. They are both corrupt and they both want to grow the government at the expense of your freedom. The rhetoric is different, and some of the details (which SIGs should I cater to in order to get elected and then ignore once they put me there?) differ, but the essentials are the same.
Wikipedia is your friend. I think many of those listed here are those in the "have declared intent, but not officially 'declared' as in having filed the paperwork" stage. Personally I think it's foolish to "officially" start a campaign two years in advance. Lay some groundwork, feel things out, make connections - sure, but that's different.
I completely disagree with both of your solutions.
Politics is not supposed to be a career. That some make it so is not acceptable, and should not be acceptable. I very strongly favor the concept of "citizen-legislator" (you are concerned with something, "take your turn" and try to do a good job, then get out and continue with "real life") which I believe is the Americal ideal. This requires the notion of public service amongst an active citizenry...and this is where we're failing today. Americans are taking less pride in their community/state/country than they used to, and are not engaging. Rather, we're turning into a nation of self-centered consumers. Granted, this is a generalization...but that's how it seems to me. I refuse to believe that any legislative office is "so complex" that one is not qualified to hold it without prior experience—one shouldn't make it a career so that one can move from city council to state legislator to congressman to senator. Executive office, on the other hand, I believe is a place where experience is very important.
Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Yet that's exactly what you're proposing—that my taxes be used (in part) to promote a platform that I may be diametrically opposed to. And don't try to tell me that it's okay because someone else's money will be used to help "my" candidate equally—if I were a candidate, I could not in good conscience accept money from someone who did not agree with me, especially if I knew they had not given it willingly. If some "wingnut" tries to run for office, it's unlikely he'll raise any money to get his word out...and that's fine. Your plan would put government in charge of differentiating the "serious" candidates from the "wingnuts" for purposes of allocating funds—and that's like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!
Here are a few of my alternative suggestions, in no particular order.
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Senate elections are the most expensive to run, because it's a popular election across a whole state. If you think "big money" corrupts politics, here's your solution. Furthermore, do you really think your senators give a hoot about your individual opinion? They feel no obligation of responsibility to you. If they were responsible directly to the legislature/governor of your state, however, the unfavorable opinion of any one of them would be very significant in that senator's reelection! Still further, the 17th was a terrible assault upon federalism, and its passage was the beginning of an ever-increasing centralized government, because states have no representation at the national level! Do you think any such thing as an "unfunded mandate" would pass the Senate if the states had representatives there that actually served their interests?
Remove all campaign finance restrictions, other than that contributions be public records.
Reform the voting system; implement Condorcet voting.
Increase the membership of the House of Representatives to 1000. That body was instituted with a 1:30k representation ratio, until the size was frozen in the early 20th century. Now an average district contains almost 700k people. That's ridiculous, and makes House members almost as distant as Senators. Clearly a body of 10k members is unworkable, but an increase from 435 is needed.
All states should implement the Maine/Nebraska method of Electoral apportionment. The Electoral College must be retained, as it is an important bulwark of federalism.
States should change one chamber of their legislature to proportional representation. The bicameral model of the US Congress, which is the basis of most state legislatures and is in turn based on the British Parliament, features an aspect that the state legislatures lack: differing groups being represented! In Congress it is "the
True, that. (Thanks for the figures. I didn't have them handy.) We don't have a Democratic and a Republican party, we have a single Politician Party. One monster, two heads, that call each other names in order to distract us.
I call BS. You're just reciting tired old class-warfare clichés. Democrats like to be called the champions of the "poor little common guy" but their personal fortunes are just as large as anyone else in the elite political class. If you honestly believe what you wrote, you've been suckered.
The only candidates you'll likely find who aren't personally wealthy are typically those that most think "don't stand a chance" because they are ideologues. They stand on principles and aren't out to win for their own personal agenda. For example, I don't expect that Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo are particularly well-to-do—House members usually aren't. Above average income certainly (as you'd expect a successful person to be), but not extremely so. (Senators and governors, on the other hand, are almost always millionaires.) They are running for president because they believe America is on a wrong course. People like GWB and Hillary run for president because it's the next step in their political careers. Why a majority of Americans (who, by definition, are average) continually elect people so unlike them to represent them is truly paradoxical, IMHO.
There aren't any "other candidates" yet...because they are smart enough to not get into the race a year early! Given the "election fatigue" this is sure to cause, waiting until a "normal" time to declare candidacy and kick off their campaigns seems to make a lot of sense. The "two-party system" is to blame for this insanity. 21-month-long campaigns??? C'mon!
For many people, if it's not what they train themselves with (I hesitate to say "learn") first, they'll never be comfortable using it. These people don't really learn how computers work, or how to work with computers. They learn which buttons to click when. Anything outside that comfort zone is too much for them to handle.
That said, Linux needs to make inroads in the education market. Many universities have computer labs with Windows sections and Mac sections...and there needs to be a Linux section too. Not as a segregated part that only the CS geeks enter, but as a regular student workstation.
If Linux wants to be in touch with the "average user", they need to be exposed to it early.
This sounds like a good argument for routine encryption of all email, not for clamping down on the freedoms of soldiers.
Soldiers blogging during times of armed conflict, however, seems like a recipe for disaster. First, I'm not all that convinced of the wisdom of putting your personal life out for the whole world to see, anyway. Second, no one person may writing anything compromising, but good intelligence is often what you get from putting together snippets of info from lots of different locations.
I can prove it! Just look at level 20 of Marathon Infinity! Obviously they were planning to train a bunch of teens to sack a church in Venice.
You're spot on, though...as a society we collectively overreact to every little thing. Common sense is anything but, and the "authorities" often seem to be the most lacking.
Place the blame where it belongs - fix the voting system. One ought to be able to vote for ones ideals without turning the result to the exact opposite. A proper voting system would do that. The problem is (as has been noted in this thread already) that the incumbent Duopoly has no intention to reform a system that benefits them. Just don't blame people for voting honestly - that's just ridiculous.
Chicken-or-egg problem. The incumbent Duopoly has no interest in "fixing" the system, because for them it ain't broke! For it to be fixed, you need to get a third party in, but no third party is likely to win under the current system.
All we have to go with is the system we have...so all we can do is vote our conscience. Those who are content to slowly meander off a cliff, keep on voting Duopoly, or failing to vote out of apathy. If you want a change, vote third party with conviction.
I believe Condorcet to be superior to IRV in almost every way. The only advantage IRV has over it is that it is "easy" to count. Well, the current plurality system is "easy" too...I don't think that is necessarily the best criterion to judge a voting system on.
The biggest problem of the current system is that it can elect a person with only a minority claim to support. In theory, he could be the person that the majority absolutely despise. Is that who we want in office, the most despicable? Any preferential system will help evaluate this better--right now it's impossible to know if third parties really "steal" from the two "front runners" or not.
However, the biggest problem that IRV has is that contenders for the "true concensus position" can be eliminated in an early round. Say Leftie has 45% and Rightie has 44%, and Centron has the remaining 11%. IRV would eliminate Centron right off...but it is pretty clear that supporters of both Leftie and Rightie would likely prefer that Centron would win instead of the "other guy". If there were a head-to-head race with Centron vs either of the others, Centron would win! On this basis, Centron ought to win as he is the "most agreeable" candidate to a true majority of voters. It's a seeming paradox that someone can be the favorite candidate of a minority yet the most agreeable to the largest majority, but it may be so!
This is where Condorcet shows its superiority. You count all preferences simultaneously, not sequentially. When IRV eliminates a person in a round, it is effectively throwing away part of your vote! How can it be accurate when your full vote isn't counted?
If you're not voting third party, you're wasting your vote.
If you don't vote what you believe, you'll never get what you want.
The people elect the government they deserve.
Two options is only one more than they had in the Soviet Union.
Every November the same party wins: the Politician Party.
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
It amazes me that for all the talk of reform and eliminating corruption in government, no one ever addresses the fundamental issue: lack of choices, which is caused directly by our (plurality) voting method. Give non-Dem/Rep voices a fair and equal chance to discuss and promote the merits of their platform instead of dismissing them outright. This means changing the voting system to something that doesn't predetermine the "leading two". Anything other than this is a charade. A previous poster had it right - "they" don't care who wins, because it's still one of "them". The real danger (in "their" minds) is if an outsider were to get in and shake things up. Yes, the past 6 years have really demonstrated the truth in "not a dime's worth of difference". Who'd've thought that a member of the "party of Reagan" would preside over the largest budget increase in history? Both parties want bigger government, so they can curtail your rights - whether they grab them from the left or the right makes no difference in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like a good thing for Anchorage. But I'm left wondering why federal money has to be involved. It's a local, or maybe state, concern. Let Alaska pay for what benefits Alaskans.
In other words, why doesn't the fed butt out of state-level affairs? Great idea! Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and maybe we'll get back to the way it used to be.
I guess then Herb will have to take wiskit.com offline, since A/UX is unlikely to ever get IPv6 support!
I think you meant to say "Home schooling is not permitted in Germany, not under any circumstances." Belief that government can fix everything is certainly a mental disorder.
To put it another way, if we weren't subsidizing corn farmers, they'd be producing less corn. Less corn means less corn syrup (and subsequent sugary beverages) and more land for other crops like vegetables (thus cheaper healthy produce).
Government routinely screws things up with its intervention. Is anyone surprised?
I was imprecise, but I think most everyone understood what I was talking about.
My question remains, how much work would it take to create a cross-toolkit API and library so that menuing could be (optionally) separated from the window? I am not a GUI developer. I don't know how much commonality there is to menuing in different toolkits, but I'd think there would be a lot.
Germany? The country whose police forcibly removed a teenager from her home because her parents dared to educate their children themselves? And ordered psych evals for the parents in order to determine if their Christian beliefs amounted to a mental disorder? And suggested that the best way to resolve the situation would be for the parents to relinquish custory of their other children?
Yeah...Germany's real tolerant.
I've often wondered what it would take to write a generic library for placing X11 menu bars at the top of the window.
You didn't read my post very closely, or didn't realize the implications of it. Your post primarily addresses the cost of campaigning. I said two things that directly impact this: one, that there should be more (smaller) Congressional districts; and two, that Senators should not be popularly elected. (Note that in both cases, I advocate returning to the plan the Constitution originally set out.) Both of these would significantly reduce the cost of campaigning. In the Congressional case, the total amount of money spent (nationally) may be the same, but the amount needed to run for any individual seat should be less. In the Senate case, campaigning should drop to virtually nil—the voting body has a membership of a couple dozen to maybe one hundred or so.
This is not a particularly obscure insight to achieve or particularly difficult to grasp. Yet it's amazing how few people realize this.
I think the media has a huge impact in reinforcing this perspective. A one-dimensional two-sided debate is easy to cover, and makes for good ratings. The more parties you throw in the mix, the less predictable news reporting becomes. And then they might have to, you know, work at it.
In the ways that matter they are the same. They are both corrupt and they both want to grow the government at the expense of your freedom. The rhetoric is different, and some of the details (which SIGs should I cater to in order to get elected and then ignore once they put me there?) differ, but the essentials are the same.
Wikipedia is your friend. I think many of those listed here are those in the "have declared intent, but not officially 'declared' as in having filed the paperwork" stage. Personally I think it's foolish to "officially" start a campaign two years in advance. Lay some groundwork, feel things out, make connections - sure, but that's different.
I completely disagree with both of your solutions.
Here are a few of my alternative suggestions, in no particular order.
True, that. (Thanks for the figures. I didn't have them handy.) We don't have a Democratic and a Republican party, we have a single Politician Party. One monster, two heads, that call each other names in order to distract us.
I call BS. You're just reciting tired old class-warfare clichés. Democrats like to be called the champions of the "poor little common guy" but their personal fortunes are just as large as anyone else in the elite political class. If you honestly believe what you wrote, you've been suckered.
The only candidates you'll likely find who aren't personally wealthy are typically those that most think "don't stand a chance" because they are ideologues. They stand on principles and aren't out to win for their own personal agenda. For example, I don't expect that Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo are particularly well-to-do—House members usually aren't. Above average income certainly (as you'd expect a successful person to be), but not extremely so. (Senators and governors, on the other hand, are almost always millionaires.) They are running for president because they believe America is on a wrong course. People like GWB and Hillary run for president because it's the next step in their political careers. Why a majority of Americans (who, by definition, are average) continually elect people so unlike them to represent them is truly paradoxical, IMHO.
There aren't any "other candidates" yet...because they are smart enough to not get into the race a year early! Given the "election fatigue" this is sure to cause, waiting until a "normal" time to declare candidacy and kick off their campaigns seems to make a lot of sense. The "two-party system" is to blame for this insanity. 21-month-long campaigns??? C'mon!
Heck, there are ways I wish the Mac UI was Platinum still. Aqua threw out the baby with the bathwater in some respects.
For many people, if it's not what they train themselves with (I hesitate to say "learn") first, they'll never be comfortable using it. These people don't really learn how computers work, or how to work with computers. They learn which buttons to click when. Anything outside that comfort zone is too much for them to handle.
That said, Linux needs to make inroads in the education market. Many universities have computer labs with Windows sections and Mac sections...and there needs to be a Linux section too. Not as a segregated part that only the CS geeks enter, but as a regular student workstation.
If Linux wants to be in touch with the "average user", they need to be exposed to it early.
This sounds like a good argument for routine encryption of all email, not for clamping down on the freedoms of soldiers.
Soldiers blogging during times of armed conflict, however, seems like a recipe for disaster. First, I'm not all that convinced of the wisdom of putting your personal life out for the whole world to see, anyway. Second, no one person may writing anything compromising, but good intelligence is often what you get from putting together snippets of info from lots of different locations.
Here's a great link that helps illustrate the "problem" with healthcare in the US by asking why is there no car insurance crisis.
I can prove it! Just look at level 20 of Marathon Infinity! Obviously they were planning to train a bunch of teens to sack a church in Venice.
You're spot on, though...as a society we collectively overreact to every little thing. Common sense is anything but, and the "authorities" often seem to be the most lacking.
Place the blame where it belongs - fix the voting system. One ought to be able to vote for ones ideals without turning the result to the exact opposite. A proper voting system would do that. The problem is (as has been noted in this thread already) that the incumbent Duopoly has no intention to reform a system that benefits them. Just don't blame people for voting honestly - that's just ridiculous.
Chicken-or-egg problem. The incumbent Duopoly has no interest in "fixing" the system, because for them it ain't broke! For it to be fixed, you need to get a third party in, but no third party is likely to win under the current system.
All we have to go with is the system we have...so all we can do is vote our conscience. Those who are content to slowly meander off a cliff, keep on voting Duopoly, or failing to vote out of apathy. If you want a change, vote third party with conviction.
I believe Condorcet to be superior to IRV in almost every way. The only advantage IRV has over it is that it is "easy" to count. Well, the current plurality system is "easy" too...I don't think that is necessarily the best criterion to judge a voting system on.
The biggest problem of the current system is that it can elect a person with only a minority claim to support. In theory, he could be the person that the majority absolutely despise. Is that who we want in office, the most despicable? Any preferential system will help evaluate this better--right now it's impossible to know if third parties really "steal" from the two "front runners" or not.
However, the biggest problem that IRV has is that contenders for the "true concensus position" can be eliminated in an early round. Say Leftie has 45% and Rightie has 44%, and Centron has the remaining 11%. IRV would eliminate Centron right off...but it is pretty clear that supporters of both Leftie and Rightie would likely prefer that Centron would win instead of the "other guy". If there were a head-to-head race with Centron vs either of the others, Centron would win! On this basis, Centron ought to win as he is the "most agreeable" candidate to a true majority of voters. It's a seeming paradox that someone can be the favorite candidate of a minority yet the most agreeable to the largest majority, but it may be so!
This is where Condorcet shows its superiority. You count all preferences simultaneously, not sequentially. When IRV eliminates a person in a round, it is effectively throwing away part of your vote! How can it be accurate when your full vote isn't counted?
If you're not voting third party, you're wasting your vote.
If you don't vote what you believe, you'll never get what you want.
The people elect the government they deserve.
Two options is only one more than they had in the Soviet Union.
Every November the same party wins: the Politician Party.
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
It amazes me that for all the talk of reform and eliminating corruption in government, no one ever addresses the fundamental issue: lack of choices, which is caused directly by our (plurality) voting method. Give non-Dem/Rep voices a fair and equal chance to discuss and promote the merits of their platform instead of dismissing them outright. This means changing the voting system to something that doesn't predetermine the "leading two". Anything other than this is a charade. A previous poster had it right - "they" don't care who wins, because it's still one of "them". The real danger (in "their" minds) is if an outsider were to get in and shake things up. Yes, the past 6 years have really demonstrated the truth in "not a dime's worth of difference". Who'd've thought that a member of the "party of Reagan" would preside over the largest budget increase in history? Both parties want bigger government, so they can curtail your rights - whether they grab them from the left or the right makes no difference in the end.