--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > The system you describe above is one that is the best > > possible > > > > > > democratic voting system...the only thing I would add to > > what > > > > you say above is that the voter should also be given the > > opportunity > > > > to NOT vote for second, third or fourth choices if he doesn't > > like > > > > them and to only vote for one (or more) candidates that he > > likes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. And in addition to this, if we were able to REALLY reform > > > > > campaign finance, end gerrymandering (such as have a > > bipartisan > > > > panel of retired judges do it), abolish the electoral college, > > and > > > in a democratically balanced fachion allocate congressional > > committee > > > > and sub-scommittee assignments -- doing away with the current > > > "patronage'/favor system, we might actually begin to have a > > > democracy in the US. as demonstrated by more than 10% of > > congressional > > > races being competitive, and voters actually turning out to vote > > > since thier > > > > > vote now counts for something. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would agree with all your additional points except the one on > > > > campaign financing which, I assume, is that you want to have > > MORE > > > > rules restricting campain financing. > > > > > > > > I am for complete laissez-faire in this area. I think > > corporations > > > > and individuals should be free to give unlimited amounts to the > > > > candidates of their choices...as long as there is immediate > > publicly > > > > available declarations of that support. > > > > > > > > If the voters are stupid enough to vote for candidates that > > > > are "bought off", then they get the government that they > > deserve. > > > > Indeed, there is much evidence to suggest that disproportionate > > > > spending for one side does NOT sway voters. > > > > > > > > I think of the nation-wide constitutional referendum asked of > > > > Canadian voters in 1992 in which the "yes" side outspent > > the "no" > > > > side by a 10 to 1 margin, had the support of every provincial > > > > government and the federal parliament (and most of the official > > > > opposition groups) a vast majority of all Canada's major > > newspaper > > > > and yet the "yes" side was soundly defeated. > > > > > > Sure, that can happen. Finance is not the Whole thing. But my > > concern > > > is that, as acknowledged but most politicians in their quieter > > > moments, they have to spend an unhealthy amount of time raising > > funds, > > > and they DO give greater acccess heavy contributors. I am not > > saying > > > all lobbyists are evil. I have been on the lobbying side of > things > > for > > > some things (mostly as analytical support, not as a regersitered > > > lobbyist) and lobbyists can be a useful source of info, data and > > > analysis. But it can get so distorted by the the heavy hitter > > > contributors -- or networks of such -- formed to curcumvent > > campaign > > > law limits. > > > > > > I know you will puke at this, but I would seriously explore / > > consider > > > public financing for major races, equal amounts given to the top > > three > > > candidates in the last iterative voting election and a > > proportionally > > > less share down to the top 5 or 10 candidates. It would reduce the > > > inherent corruption in the system and give office holder back 50% > > of > > > their 80 hour weeks tosepnd on policy, not politics (or even > rest, > > god > > > forbid). > > > > > > Also, A "truth in campaign ads" law to limit outright lies and > > > spurious untruths would be useful. > > > > I think that letting the marketplace of ideas self-regulate is the > > best solution...particularly in this age of the internet where > > candidates will make outright lies at their peril... > > > > And it's why sites such as factcheck.org have sprung up without > > government dictate. They are an excellent example of the > > marketplace self-regulating campaigns and political discourse. I > > hope we have more sites like this. > > I suppose you read what factcheck.org had to say about your favorite > candidates, eh?
I remember specifically what they said in response to an outrageous falsehood said by a political figure who -- to his credit -- corrected himself afterwards and no longer continued to spout the falsehood. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
