New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 10 Aug 2006 18:50 John Fields wrote: > But, he won't be financed unless he's viable in the first place. Tou *still* don't get it do you ? Financing *makes* for viability ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Aug 2006 18:51 John Fields wrote: > We fixed that problem, long before W, by limiting _anyone's_ term of > office in the presidency of the US to two four year terms, which > means that W will be out next time. How about the Senate ? Graham
From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian on 10 Aug 2006 19:04 On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:22:51 -0500, John Fields wrote: > On 10 Aug 2006 09:30:01 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>It has given you two terms of Dubbya, which suggests the system needs >>to work better, > > We fixed that problem, long before W, by limiting _anyone's_ term of > office in the presidency of the US to two four year terms, which > means that W will be out next time. > > Who would you like to see in there next time? Doug Stanhope. http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000388.shtml Cheers! Rich
From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian on 10 Aug 2006 19:07 On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:06:57 +0100, John Woodgate wrote: > In message <44DB65A2.85B2E456(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Thu, 10 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > >>What is they say ? I some constituencies you could elect a donkey ! >>Eeeyore ! > > Well, Dirk said they've already elected some Great Northern Divers > (Gavia immer). Hey! You be nice! That's Minnesota's state bird, and Canada has a coin named after them! ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: bill.sloman on 10 Aug 2006 19:17
John Larkin wrote: > On 10 Aug 2006 09:30:01 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org 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. > > > >And if the candidate has been financed and knows that they are going to > >have to be financed again at the next election, they are beholden to > >the financier(s)? > > Right. And the more diverse the financiers, the more democracy you > get. It works out. Not exactly. By definition, financiers have money. Most people don't have a lot of disposable income, so your system ends up over-representing the wealthy - which makes it a plutocracy rather than a democracy. > >It has given you two terms of Dubbya, which suggests the system needs > >to work better, > > To you maybe. But you don't matter. No, I don't. But educated Americans mostly regard Dubbya as an abberation, and they do matter. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |