wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], anon_couscous_ff
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], anon_couscous_ff
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "jyouells2000"
> <jyouells@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], 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.
Multiple parties won't work without Irv.
>
> 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".
Because they know they waste their vote if they vote third party
without IRV.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
HAHAHA. As opposed to the current system where many large states are
ignored.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
Did I say limts? your thinking is quite limited if thats all you think
of as campaign financing reform.
But that unlimited money is "free speech" is a bogus argument. But I
don't care to debate it at this hour.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
hahahha you don't even read what I wrote. I didnt say term limits.
blah blah blah :)
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.
