<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> 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.
How is it a "wasted vote" under a non-IRV scenario? The way I think
is that it is the only vote that counts! The more people vote for a
third party candidate, the more the powers that be will listen to
the platform of that third party.
I believe it's a wasted vote to have your vote "lost" in the
plethora of votes for the status quo 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.
>
> HAHAHA. As opposed to the current system where many large states
are
> ignored.
You mean like CA and NY?
How were they ignored...did their electoral votes not get counted?
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
Then why respond at all?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
