Question

[Winstonm]

Either David Hasselhoff or Britney Spears, depending on which celeb gets the most air time on Entertainment Tonight between now and eclection time.

 

Many would rather stay at home than vote for a prochoice candidate.

 

I'd rather stay home than vote for any of the present un-candid-ates. Same party; different branches; why bother?

 

Besides, my non-vote will still be counted in Chicago as another "stamp the rooster".

[helene_t]

I would vote for whatever democrat is more likely to win the election. Whether or not I like him/her and his/her views would be completely irrelevant.

 

Electoral systems all over the World encourage people to vote tactically, voting on the basis of how they think other voters will think yet other voters will think etc. ultimately obscuring pretty much the voice of the people.

 

There has been enough research done about how to design an electoral that does not encourage tactical voting. Google on "absolute majority rule" for example. I wonder why such a scheme hasn't been implemented anywhere. Presumably it's in someone's interests that voters think they can screw each other.

[blackshoe]

I would vote for whatever democrat is more likely to win the election. Whether or not I like him/her and his/her views would be completely irrelevant.

I wouldn't. I'd look at every individual candidate, and vote for the one I think most likely to run the country as I would like it to be run. If he happened not to be a Republican (I'm a registered Republican) that would be fine with me.

 

A bit of an aside - I said I'm a registered Republican, and I am. l've considered changing that to Libertarian, though - I probably should do that, since the views of the LP are much closer to my own than either of the major parties. I had a friend who was registered as a Democrat, even though he agreed much more with the Republicans. I asked him once why he did that. He said "I want to know what the enemy is up to." :P

 

Note that in New York State, where I live, the two major parties have a stranglehold on the ballot - the top two lines on every ballot are "Republican" and "Democrat", and the other lines are for third parties which have met the approval of the two big guys - last time I checked, there was no "Libertarian Party" line. You can't vote in a party primary if you're not registered in that party - and you can only register with one party at a time. I find it interesting that the candidate for, for example the Conservative Party is almost always the same candidate listed for the RP; similarly for the Liberal Party and the DP. And I long for a box labelled "None of the above is acceptable". :(

 

This system is "sort of" democracy, at best. I don't see it changing any time soon, though. :)

 

Britney Spears can't run her own life, much less the country's. Hasselhoff, I don't know. I might vote for Arnold, but that'd require a Constitutional Amendment, and I'm not willing to go that far.

[Al_U_Card]

I would vote for whatever democrat is more likely to win the election. Whether or not I like him/her and his/her views would be completely irrelevant.

 

Electoral systems all over the World encourage people to vote tactically, voting on the basis of how they think other voters will think yet other voters will think etc. ultimately obscuring pretty much the voice of the people.

 

There has been enough research done about how to design an electoral that does not encourage tactical voting. Google on "absolute majority rule" for example. I wonder why such a scheme hasn't been implemented anywhere. Presumably it's in someone's interests that voters think they can screw each other.

I do kind of like that 1-2-3 choice for getting the "most popular" but I would like even better the "proposition" ballot, where people vote for the man AND select how to go on certain issues debated before the election ie healthcare vs no healthcare etc. Easier to keep their lies from being forgotten.

[mike777]

"I wouldn't. I'd look at every individual candidate, and vote for the one I think most likely to run the country as I would like it to be run. If he happened not to be a Republican (I'm a registered Republican) that would be fine with me."

 

OF course the President does not run the country though many may prefer they did. Sort of what elections in the USA are all about. How much should the central government or one person run the country?

[mike777]

"Electoral systems all over the World encourage people to vote tactically"

 

 

Yes the voting for government in the USA is purposely set up for this, not a pure democracy.

 

I think most framers of government are scared to death of a pure democracy, the tyranny of a pure democracy.

[skjaeran]

I'd never ever vote for a republican.

From over here I can't say I know the candidates enough, but I guess I'd prefer Hillary with Obama as VP.

[mike777]

I'd never ever vote for a republican.

From over here I can't say I know the candidates enough, but I guess I'd prefer Hillary with Obama as VP.

Never ever is a very long time.....indeed very long time

 

Why never, ever?

[blackshoe]

OF course the President does not run the country... How much should the central government or one person run the country?

He's the chief executive. That he has checks and balances to deal with in Congress and the Supreme Court doesn't change that. As to that last question, not much, IMO.

[helene_t]

I do kind of like that 1-2-3 choice for getting the "most popular" but I would like even better the "proposition" ballot, where people vote for the man AND select how to go on certain issues debated before the election ie healthcare vs no healthcare etc.  Easier to keep their lies from being forgotten.

Yes, that's another issue, the US president has way too much power. I'd prefer members of the government and heads of state to be selected purely on the basis of their management qualifications. What they think of proposed legislation (pro or contra war, gay marriage, tax increases etc.) ought to be irrelevant since the legislation is the parliament's business, not the government's, let alone the head-of-state's.

[Al_U_Card]

The framers were sensible enough to see the inherent stability of the tripod and to understand the reasoned, dynamic and popular forms of movement that drive the political process. Each element, when represented adequately, provides the impetus to ensure a balanced and effective political system.

[mike777]

I do kind of like that 1-2-3 choice for getting the "most popular" but I would like even better the "proposition" ballot, where people vote for the man AND select how to go on certain issues debated before the election ie healthcare vs no healthcare etc.  Easier to keep their lies from being forgotten.

Yes, that's another issue, the US president has way too much power. I'd prefer members of the government and heads of state to be selected purely on the basis of their management qualifications. What they think of proposed legislation (pro or contra war, gay marriage, tax increases etc.) ought to be irrelevant since the legislation is the parliament's business, not the government's, let alone the head-of-state's.

You do not consider the parliment the government?

You do not think people should propose legislation or the head of state? What they think is irrelevant?

Of course parliment would have to pass it but but proposing is different.

[helene_t]

You do not consider the parliment the government?

In American terminology: Congress is not the same as government.

You do not think people should propose legislation or the head of state? [....] Of course parliament would have to pass it but but proposing is different.

As I see it, the reasons why government has the task of proposing legislation is purely technical. It should not be seen as a way for the government to exercise political power. If a sufficient large number of parliamentarians, or other legitimate body, wants the government to propose a law, then the government must do so even if it's against the particular law.

[mike777]

You do not consider the parliment the government?

In American terminology: Congress is not the same as government.

You do not think people should propose legislation or the head of state? [....] Of course parliament would have to pass it but but proposing is different.

As I see it, the reasons why government has the task of proposing legislation is purely technical. It should not be seen as a way for the government to exercise political power. If a sufficient large number of parliamentarians, or other legitimate body, wants the government to propose a law, then the government must do so even if it's against the particular law.

I do not fully understand what you are saying in your posts, but it sounds scary as hell.

[helene_t]

I find it a scary idea that a single person should have the mandate to veto legislation. Or that such a small group of persons as the government should have the right to delay or even block proposed legislation on the basis of their own political viewpoints. Or that voters should try to balance managerial qualifications and political views of the candidates.

 

And I grew up in a small country without international ambitions. In a big country it would be much more scary.

[mike777]

I find it a scary idea that a single person should have the mandate to veto legislation. Or that such a small group of persons as the government should have the right to delay or even block proposed legislation on the basis of their own political viewpoints. Or that voters should try to balance managerial qualifications and political views of the candidates.

 

And I grew up in a small country without international ambitions. In a big country it would be much more scary.

Well we sure do all of the above and much much more here in the USA :(

 

I would be scared if people were forbidden to. I assume there is some punishment if a citizen breaks the forbidden rules in your country and does some of the stuff I advocate.

 

All power to technocrats :)

[helene_t]

Well we sure do all of the above and much much more here in the USA :(

 

I would be scared if people were forbidden to. I assume there is some punishment if a citizen breaks the forbidden rules in your country and does some of the stuff I advocate.

 

All power to technocrats :)

Who's talking about technocrats? Who's talking about people? I was talking about a single-politician body vs. a +/- 20-politician body vs a +/- 200-politician body. I have no clue how you relate this to technocrats vs people.

[mike777]

Well we sure do all of the above and much much more here in the USA  :(

 

I would be scared if people were forbidden to. I assume there is some punishment if a citizen breaks the forbidden rules in your country and does some of the stuff I advocate.

 

All power to technocrats  :)

Who's talking about technocrats? Who's talking about people? I was talking about a single-politician body vs. a +/- 20-politician body vs a +/- 200-politician body. I have no clue how you relate this to technocrats vs people.

What you write is really confusing, as I understand it, 99% of the country would be thrown in jail for breaking your rules.

 

Go back to your first posts.

 

"I'd prefer members of the government and heads of state to be selected purely on the basis of their management qualifications. What they think of proposed legislation (pro or contra war, gay marriage, tax increases etc.) ought to be irrelevant since the legislation is the parliament's business, not the government's, let alone the head-of-state's".

 

 

"As I see it, the reasons why government has the task of proposing legislation is purely technical. It should not be seen as a way for the government to exercise political power. If a sufficient large number of parliamentarians, or other legitimate body, wants the government to propose a law, then the government must do so even if it's against the particular law."

[helene_t]

What you write is really confusing, as I understand it, 99% of the country would be thrown in jail for breaking your rules.

 

Go back to your first posts.

My first post was about a completely different issue, namely the primary elections vs. absolute majority rule.

 

I have no idea which of my posts you are referring to. In any case, I never advocated any restrictions on citizens behavior, electoral or otherwise, in any of my posts. Jail? WTF are u talking about?

[mike777]

I will try and rephrase. Under your rules, can people or the head of state propose laws to Parliament. Can they lobby? Can politics be considered?

 

If not then I assume 99% of the country ends up in jail for breaking your rules.

[mike777]

What you write is really confusing, as I understand it, 99% of the country would be thrown in jail for breaking your rules.

 

Go back to your first posts.

My first post was about a completely different issue, namely the primary elections vs. absolute majority rule.

 

I have no idea which of my posts you are referring to. In any case, I never advocated any restrictions on citizens behavior, electoral or otherwise, in any of my posts. Jail? WTF are u talking about?

Yes you do...read your own posts..:( I quoted them above. That is exactly what you propose.

[Al_U_Card]

It is not the method that is important, it is the dynamic and the inter-relationship of the composite bodies. As long as balance is maintained then (reasonable read functional) harmony and efficacy are obtained. It is when sand is added to the gears that problems occur. The recent movement towards increased executive privilege has been exacerbated by the "fear" of the legislative branch to conduct itself in an upstanding manner. Patriot act?!? Ron Paul deserves kudos for voting against it. At least he saw the writing on the wall.

[skjaeran]

I'd never ever vote for a republican.

From over here I can't say I know the candidates enough, but I guess I'd prefer Hillary with Obama as VP.

Never ever is a very long time.....indeed very long time

 

Why never, ever?

That's easy.

 

I'm a social democrat, that's I'm voting on the left side (not far out on our political scale, but outside your scale) in norwegian politics. The republicans would place at the far right side in Norway, far from all my ground political beliefs.

 

Sure, even the democratic candidates will place to the right side of the center over here. But I'd be able to find at least some common ground there. A democratic president would pull in what I consider the right direction on some issues and avoid pulling in the wrong direction on others.

[mike777]

I'd never ever vote for a republican.

From over here I can't say I know the candidates enough, but I guess I'd prefer Hillary with Obama as VP.

Never ever is a very long time.....indeed very long time

 

Why never, ever?

That's easy.

 

I'm a social democrat, that's I'm voting on the left side (not far out on our political scale, but outside your scale) in norwegian politics. The republicans would place at the far right side in Norway, far from all my ground political beliefs.

 

Sure, even the democratic candidates will place to the right side of the center over here. But I'd be able to find at least some common ground there. A democratic president would pull in what I consider the right direction on some issues and avoid pulling in the wrong direction on others.

ok

 

What sort of policies would Republicans have to advocate to get your vote?

I am guessing it would have something to do with more of the country run by the central government?

 

This left/right stuff always confuses me. Left or right can mean so many things.

For instance the left or the right might be for war or more government spending/taxes or control.

[cherdano]

How about universal health care? Gun control? A liberal position on gay rights? A clear stand against a universal ban of abortion? In other words, be a democrat?