KitemanSA's proposal on first glance seems interesting. But , being able to vote for and against candidates, is a double vote. Vote yes for your candidate, and no against the opposing candidate. This would benefit the hard liners on either side, but the moderates and independents may vote yes or no for a candidate, but stay neutral on another. This would, I think, dilute the influence of the moderates, thus leading to even greater polarization.
As far as lifetime terms, that is already done, they are called royality, Popes, dictators and judges. some may be good, some may be bad. In some parliamentary systems I think something similar is done. The leadership may stay in power indefinably, unless there is a vote of no confidence, then an election must be held.
I suspect almost everything has been tried and nothing has been abuse proof.
Dan Tibbets
Occupy Idiocy
Kiteman is describing a 3 valued form of Range Voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting. I think a 2 valued version is sufficient, as strategic voting of a range ballot will degenerate to using just the 2 extreme values. But I'd vote in a support of an initiative for a 3 value version over the current plurality elections. Proportional Representation is another viable election method for bodies such as congress.
Attempts to break 2 party dominance are pretty much futile as long as plurality elections are used.
Attempts to break 2 party dominance are pretty much futile as long as plurality elections are used.
Proportional Representation gives you: coalitions are formed after the elections - bad idea.hanelyp wrote:Kiteman is describing a 3 valued form of Range Voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting. I think a 2 valued version is sufficient, as strategic voting of a range ballot will degenerate to using just the 2 extreme values. But I'd vote in a support of an initiative for a 3 value version over the current plurality elections. Proportional Representation is another viable election method for bodies such as congress.
Attempts to break 2 party dominance are pretty much futile as long as plurality elections are used.
Plurality elections: coalitions are made before the voting - thus you actually have some idea of what you are voting for. Not that they will keep their promises but at least they can't use the excuse "but we had to be coalition partners with ....... to get into power".
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
currently, the majority of the electorate DON'T VOTE. By unscientific poll, many would if they could vote NO!!!. But they can't, so they don't.hanelyp wrote:Kiteman is describing a 3 valued form of Range Voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting. I think a 2 valued version is sufficient, as strategic voting of a range ballot will degenerate to using just the 2 extreme values. But I'd vote in a support of an initiative for a 3 value version over the current plurality elections. Proportional Representation is another viable election method for bodies such as congress.
Attempts to break 2 party dominance are pretty much futile as long as plurality elections are used.
Since i haven't liked any of the candidates for the last 10 years, I fall into this category. You can't blame me for them ... of course, i can't complaint too much either, as I didn't vote.KitemanSA wrote:currently, the majority of the electorate DON'T VOTE. By unscientific poll, many would if they could vote NO!!!. But they can't, so they don't.hanelyp wrote:Kiteman is describing a 3 valued form of Range Voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting. I think a 2 valued version is sufficient, as strategic voting of a range ballot will degenerate to using just the 2 extreme values. But I'd vote in a support of an initiative for a 3 value version over the current plurality elections. Proportional Representation is another viable election method for bodies such as congress.
Attempts to break 2 party dominance are pretty much futile as long as plurality elections are used.
Not every election, but there have definitely been times I would have voted just to be one more vote for "someone other than THAT guy" if there had been someone else even marginally better (in my opinion) to pick from. If I had the option to vote against folks, I definitely would have been much more inclined to participate.KitemanSA wrote:Did you dislike any of them enough to have gone to vote against them if you could have?krenshala wrote: Since i haven't liked any of the candidates for the last 10 years, I fall into this category. You can't blame me for them ... of course, i can't complaint too much either, as I didn't vote.
Actually, it worked pretty well since WWII. Do not get distracted by recent troubles. You are still living in richest era of history and you are citizen of one of richest countries in the world.Skipjack wrote:Ah, because you think that this has been going so well lately, hu?Do you really think that common people do have the ability to choose right? Perhaps it is actually good thing that elections are just big show, with real forces hidden behind....
And to document my idea, what do you thinkg is the cause of problems and how to fix them?
The popular voice will tell you that the problem is caused by "greed of Wall Street" and we will fix it by "putting them all into jail". Well, good luck with such solution.
Wallstreet sure is part of it. The fracking speculated away money that was not theirs to begin with (it belonged to the people that put their money into those banks, you know). Some of these investments that these "wall street experts" made had chances worse than playing at a roulette table (with lower potental returns). If someone went gambling in Las Vegas with someone elses money, he would be put into jail for embezzlement. Now, the same people whose money they gambled away to begin with (you know, the tax paying kind) had to pay those bankers again to bail them out. Then these bankers turned arround and paid themselves a big ass bonus on top of that and none of them ended up in jail. Why? Because they own the politicians, that is why! And you are mocking the people that get angry over that?The popular voice will tell you that the problem is caused by "greed of Wall Street" and we will fix it by "putting them all into jail". Well, good luck with such solution.
The US is going to see a period of civil unrest and the latest laws are a preparation for that. Take my word for it. They know that the next bailout is only waiting to happen, when the credit card bubble bursts and that will burst even worse than the real estate bubble did. And I seriously doubt that people will agree with the next bailout, not after the mockery that those in power made of them with the last bailout. People are angry, not just in the US, but also here, everywhere. All countries are preparing for civil unrest and a lot of people will end up in the camps that your country already has and many of them "indefinitely". The only question will be, who it will be. The scale can still tipp either way.
Me, I am fracking scared by the prospect, no matter what side wins. I have heard New Zealand is nice this time of the year. I am seriously considering moving there.
Almost every alternate voting process is just a fancier way to say "YES" to more government. None of them is worth a dang if they don't include the ability to say "NO!!!!"hanelyp wrote:Kiteman is describing a 3 valued form of Range Voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting. I think a 2 valued version is sufficient, as strategic voting of a range ballot will degenerate to using just the 2 extreme values. But I'd vote in a support of an initiative for a 3 value version over the current plurality elections.
OK, let us get technical. What you mean is that there was wrong assumption that by combining many bad loans into single package you get one big that is OK. That was stupid, I agree, but was not this stupidness fueled by the greed of those having money in banks to have higher interests and those wanting to get cheap loans?Skipjack wrote:Wallstreet sure is part of it. The fracking speculated away money that was not theirs to begin with (it belonged to the people that put their money into those banks, you know).The popular voice will tell you that the problem is caused by "greed of Wall Street" and we will fix it by "putting them all into jail". Well, good luck with such solution.
Seriously, I would not call this "speculate away". I guess there is some minor part of money that was wasted by outright frauds, but the majority was just bad judgement/management (plus "the real cause").
Are you aware that bailoout does not mean "pay bankers" and those money are being paid back?Now, the same people whose money they gambled away to begin with (you know, the tax paying kind) had to pay those bankers again to bail them out.
And are you aware that without bailout, everybody would have lost everything?
Popular oversimplification. Happens a lot to angry voters.Then these bankers turned arround and paid themselves a big ass bonus on top of that and none of them ended up in jail.
Being angry is not the same thing as being right.Why? Because they own the politicians, that is why! And you are mocking the people that get angry over that?
And we have not yet even started to speak about what is the real cause of all this trouble (which IMO is long term trade imbalance between USA and China).
Well, that would be a pity... but does not dispute my original premise. Maybe just makes it more likely.People are angry, not just in the US, but also here, everywhere. All countries are preparing for civil unrest and a lot of people will end up in the camps that your country already has and many of them "indefinitely". The only question will be, who it will be. The scale can still tipp either way.