Hi Tuukka, That may work with today's information technology, so long as the questions were not leading, and it couldn't be tamperred with. We could have a computer do all the analysis, so long as the algorithm wasn't written by a political hack. Any polling data you want can be had depending on how the questions are asked.
Part of our political process is through the rhetoric of convincing. It requires people to get together and discuss things. Many people make emotional decisions when voting (and there is nothing wrong with that). The solitary filling out of a form on the internet would probably only attract the real political die-hards, and the general population would not participate. Besides, in this country most people do not know specifically what they want outside of their kitchen. Me? I go as far as my garden. I do think that the jury should be replaced with experts, like they have in Holland (maybe Finland?). The jury system is a mess here! But we glorify in it being SO American. Just my humble opinion of course. In this country, Chicago is an "election machine", if you know what I mean. Cheers, Mark On 1/24/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, > So... what would you say of the following kind of solution. You ever > heard of those "election machines", what do you call them? An online > questionnaire, which gives you the candidate who agrees with your views > the most. > > What if you just complete a questionnaire, once every four years, which > tells the government what you want? If you want to add a question > relevant to you to the questionnaire, you just get enough people to sign > a petition. > > What if politicians were replaced with experts who would simply have the > task of adhering to the results of the questionnaire, and the option to > issue notifications to people about their predictions of the outcome of > their voting acts? What if these people were not paid more for their job > than the average income in the US? > > -Tuukka > > > > 23.1.2012 20:14, 118 kirjoitti: >> Hi Tuukka, >> We just have different views. Not uncommon. >> >> Personally I do not like using a leaky pipeline through the State for >> money to get from one person to another. In this country much of the >> money is lost in the bureaucracy, the government is way too large and >> wasteful, and it is a self sustaining nightmare (IMO). Many of us >> believe that the government should be directly responsible to the >> citizen in the same way an employee is responsible to his/her boss, >> rather than government officials being responsible to themselves. >> There is a growing elitism within our government, and many people make >> a carreer out of it. The notion of civil servant seems to be lost. >> There is lots of money to be made through the government, and >> temptation is difficult to control by politicians who mostly think of >> themselves and power. For that is the nature of someone who wants to >> rise within the control structure. I think that power corrupts this >> particular breed of human. >> >> I prefer direct transactions where I get paid directly for the work I >> do. It just seems more efficient to me, that routing it through a >> governement. For some in the government their only job is to get >> money and give it back. I still have high regard for the human spirit >> and it doesn't need to be controlled by a certain group of people. >> But, that is my opinion, and it does not make me right. I respect >> your opinion as equally right. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> On 1/22/12, Tuukka Virtaperko<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Mark, >>> to clarify my point regarding the welfare trap. If approximately 50% of >>> my income went to the state, it doesn't mean I'm paying roughly as much >>> tax and such as any other Finn, although tax revenue is 44 % of GDP. VAT >>> is usually 23 % here, so if I used all my income to buy something, state >>> would get approximately 73 % of my money. >>> >>> -Tuukka >>> >>> >>> >>>> Mark, >>>> this is not an unfriendly conversation, and not something that would >>>> stand out as inconvenient for me. I agree the USA has lots of charity. >>>> But I'd like to point out that in the US, total tax revenue is 27% of >>>> GDP. In Finland, it's 44 %. Although giving 5 % of money to charity is >>>> good, it doesn't necessarily even a 17 % difference in tax revenue as >>>> percentage of GDP. I do not expect to ever be hard up for money to >>>> survive, but I'll remember what you said in case I will be. >>>> >>>> -Tuukka >>>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
