Hi Nick,
yes, it is similar where I live, although we have more parties in
Germany (conservative, socialist, liberal and green parties). No, people
usually do not change their mind in political discussions. They change
their mind during the course of time, though. I changed my mind for
More parties? I'm for it! :)
But seriously, one question on fair voting: when you vote, can you vote
for multiple candidates in priority order so that an instant runoff can
be held?
-- Owen
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Jochen Fromm j...@cas-group.net wrote:
Hi Nick,
yes, it is
Jochen,
I really like the instant run=off. Or any run-off, for that matter. Forces
people to snuggle with people they don't like.
I have voted for Obama. And for Elizabeth Warren. I vote in Massachusetts.
Romney seems to me to be a scoundrel. He seems so unstable that I am
tempted
Jochen -
Thanks for stirring the pot as an outsider. I have kept my hands off
of it here because I *do* respect those whose politics I don't agree
with and feel the need to have a little restraint. I think you are
correct that there is a larger contingent of left-leaners than
Nick -
I really like the instant run=off. Or any run-off, for that matter.
Forces people to snuggle with people they don't like.
I do like run-offs, but more so that I can vote *first* for my preferred
candidate and *second* for the lesser of evils and get a more diverse
pot of ideals,
I watched an interesting video interview with three British bookies who run
online political betting markets the other day. They agreed that there had
been concerted attempts to skew the markets to favor Romney, all of which
had been eaten alive in short order by bettors happy to take the Obama
A surprising number of my left wing-nut acquaintances on Facebook
castigated me for having voted for Gary, claiming that I was giving away a
vote to Romney.
I repeatedly, patiently explained, No, I'm taking away a vote for Obama,
and I'm taking away a vote for Romney, and I've giving it to Gary.
BTW, I still like the idea moving the US to adopt the double-CEO model:
a President (head of state) and a Prime Minister (head of the government
with a cabinet). May be, as some have said, it really is too big a job
for one person.
On 11/4/12 1:54 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
More parties? I'm
The market for congressional control is going strongly toward
RepublicanHouseDemocraticSenate (RH_DS).
Anyone remember what happened in mid-September?
-- rec --
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
Yeah, because that never backfires: Ralph Nader, Florida, 2000.
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
snip
Also, and primarily, that vote was a statement against the two party
system.
FRIAM
Well, ok, then. The PRIMARY primary objective in voting for Johnson was
that I did not end up voting for a candidate who was so arrogant as to blow
off the preparations for the first debate that his advisers were
requesting, and who instead took a vacation day before that first debate.
And then,
And here's another thing that needs fixing: the graphic design of our
ballots, which vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and sometimes
election to election. This is an easily solvable problem if approached by
good designers at a national level as is apparently the case in Canada.
-
This graph is from
http://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-bushs-first-term-vs-obamas-first-term-2012-11.
It
compares the fates of private, local govt, and state govt employment under
the first four years of GWBush and BHObama, the point being that private
employment has recovered more under Obama's
Concerning multiple parties: In 1960, just after college, I studied in
Italy for a year. I thought it be would so great to have multiple parties
that stood for something, because the two US parties looked like Tweedledum
and Tweedledee (not the problem we have now, obviously). Then I saw the
very
My prurient interest in seeing Romney elected is seeing what a man without
any center does when he's in charge? My reference to the supreme court was
not and enthusiasm for a Bush v Gore kind of out come .. I think there might
be blood in the streets, if that happened again, chiefly because I
The only problem with that, Nick, is that he wouldn't be in charge, any more
than George W. Bush was in charge, the decider, etc. I think Romney's whole
campaign shows this. He's a plaything of The Interests. I immediately got your
reference to the possibility of a Bork-directed set of Supreme
Pamela,
Oh, please let me be clear. I am very happy with Obama. My only
fascination with Romney is what would happens if he were SIMULATANEOUSLY put
under pressure from competing interests. It is by no means a noble
curiosity. It would be like slowing down to look at a car wreck.
As much as we think we know what each candidate stands for and would do
under unforeseen events (Katrina, 9/11, Superstorm Sandy), presidential
historians believe the times shape the presidency.
One good example: Clinton was a master of many arts, but he was the prime
mover of the eventual
18 matches
Mail list logo
