New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 10 Aug 2006 12:21 John Larkin wrote: > On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > >> Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance >> extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns >> extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of >> power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is >> inequitable and undemocratic. > > That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public > office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the > advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. It's rather the other way around. A candidate for public office will be truly viable if he's financed. There's enough total loons in US politics to bear out that statement. Dirk
From: bill.sloman on 10 Aug 2006 12:30 John Larkin wrote: > On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > >Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance > >extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns > >extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of > >power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is > >inequitable and undemocratic. > > That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public > office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the > advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. And if the candidate has been financed and knows taht they are going to have to be financed again at the next election, they are beholden to the financier(s)? > A more serious money-related problem is regionalism driven by pork. > > But overall, the system works very well, so you can't complain too > much about the details. It has given you two terms of Dubbya, which suggests the system needs to work better, -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Eeyore on 10 Aug 2006 12:56 Jim Yanik wrote: > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > news:rhimd2pir8dcscd57m2oum9764lib0ki4t(a)4ax.com: > > > On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > > >>Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance > >>extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns > >>extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of > >>power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is > >>inequitable and undemocratic. > > > > That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public > > office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the > > advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. > > > > A more serious money-related problem is regionalism driven by pork. > > > > But overall, the system works very well, so you can't complain too > > much about the details. > > > > John > > IMO,a most serious problem for US democracy is career politicians;our > representatives should only serve a couple of terms and then go back to > real life. Ocassionally you make some kind of sense Jim. Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Aug 2006 12:58 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > >> Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance > >> extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns > >> extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of > >> power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is > >> inequitable and undemocratic. > > > > That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public > > office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the > > advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. > > It's rather the other way around. > A candidate for public office will be truly viable if he's financed. > There's enough total loons in US politics to bear out that statement. What is they say ? I some constituencies you could elect a donkey ! Eeeyore ! Graham
From: John Larkin on 10 Aug 2006 13:26
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:36:09 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >David Brown wrote: > >> John Larkin wrote: >> > >> > I don't know about antiquated, but it is certainly the oldest. The USA >> > did, after all, invent modern democracy around 1776, when both England >> > and France were ruled mostly by kings and lords. >> >> No, the USA invented American democracy around 1776. Given that the >> nature of democracy (who is allowed to vote, for what purposes, how >> often and in what manner) has changed continuously since early Greek >> democracy up to and including modern trends such as gerrymandering, >> untrustworthy electronic voting machines, and targeted voter >> registration problems. >> >> It was the Romans who first used something roughly equivalent to >> "modern" democracy, and for modern Europe, it would be England with the >> Magna Carta in 1215. > >My country of birth has the oldest Parliament in continuous existence. Over 1000 >yrs old. >http://www.tynwald.org.im/ > >Eat your heart out USA. > >Graham Hardly "continuous existance". It's been dissolved many times. John |