<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_couscous_ff
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000"
<jyouells@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_couscous_ff
> > <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > The chances of getting an intelligent incentives policy
for
> > energy
> > > > from the gov't is only slightly better than the chances of
> > getting a
> > > > group of pundits in FF after all the money is collected. The
> > energy
> > > > market will eventually do it, almost certainly.
> > >
> > > There are plenty of smart polcy analysts who know and promote
such
> > > policies. Its the undemocratic nature of the US governemnt
(90% of
> > > congressional races not competitive, 70% of states in
presidential
> > > elections not campaigned in significantly) and the
> > high "corruption"
> > > from current campaign financing that is the problem.
> > >
> >
> >
> > ...if people keep voting those same 90% into office with all the
> > alleged "corruption", wouldn't you say that the people get the
> > government that they deserve?
>
> I think its quite a bent system. Your statement appears to be
premised
> on real choice. My point is that there is no real choice in a large
> majority of races. From past discussions, I thought you favored the
> types of reforms I am advocating (perhaps not):
>
> Multiple parties
...if that's what people want, fine.
But we have multiple parties now...perhaps a dozen or so. The only
problem is, 98% of the people vote for either the Democrats or the
Republicans.
Although I can't vote in the USA (although I live here) I always
vote in Canadian elections by absentee ballot and will always vote
Libertarian if that party fields a candidate.
But the people are free to be the sheep that they are and here in
the US the people, like, for the most part, the people in Canada,
are sheep and don't vote for "third parties".
>
> IRV -- Instant run-off voting
Why we don't have that system now in this age of computers I don't
know. Now one only needs a plurality to get elected...with instant
run-off, only one who garners a majority of those voting gets
elected...
>
> Abolish electoral college
No, I'm not for that. That will skewer voting for president to the
more populace states and virtually ignore the small ones.
>
> End jerrymandering of house districts
>
> Extensive campaign finance reform.
Totally disagree.
I think there should be ZERO limits on what either individuals or
corporations spend on campaigns.
Com'n. We live in a society where we are bombarded on a daily basis
with advertising. Do YOU believe every claim made by an
advertiser? Of course not. We discriminate.
We can do the same thing with claims by politicians.
All that campaign finance reform will do is give us the illustion
that it will work.
>
> Four year house terms (to reduce campagin fund raising cycle)
Totally disagree.
If people don't want the representatives that are there for more
than four terms, they can vote them out of office.
>
> etc.
>
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
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
