New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: bill.sloman on 10 Aug 2006 19:24 John Fields 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 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, > > --- > 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? Well, not Jeb Bush, for a start. And the way Dubbya carries on, he may just decide - under executive privilege - that the two-term rules doesn't apply to him. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 10 Aug 2006 19:40 On 10 Aug 2006 16:17:24 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >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. Most of the money collected by politial parties and candidates is in small amounts, from individuals, with Republicans collecting in smaller increments than Democrats. > >> >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. We elected him twice, the most times allowed by law. And your generalism about "educated americans" is clearly false, unless your definition is circular. John
From: John Larkin on 10 Aug 2006 19:43 On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:51:15 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 We passed term limits here in California, but the US Supreme Court has decided that no state can pass term limit laws for Federal positions. It would take a constitutional amendment, which would be a very big deal. John
From: Eeyore on 10 Aug 2006 19:51 John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:51:15 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 > > We passed term limits here in California, but the US Supreme Court has > decided that no state can pass term limit laws for Federal positions. > It would take a constitutional amendment, which would be a very big > deal. So ? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 10 Aug 2006 20:51
In article <44DB0AFE.5E570153(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: [[[.. WMD ...] >> Hardly;Israel believes it. > >Big Deal !!! No-one else with any brains does. Don't assume Israel really believes it. What they really believe may not be what they are willing to say because of the need to protect their sources etc. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |