Political Change
-
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
-
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
Paul Riley wrote: Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits Well, I would like to say yes. BUT until the voters take the time to look at what the people really stand for and not vote for who had the worst claims against their opponents. (Usually who spent the most on advertising?) I see little hope. But I am a forever optimist (No that left with my youth.) Texas has realllllllyyyy been bad this year. I am about to just write myself in. "We are what we repeatedly do. excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle
-
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
Something needs to change. Party politics sucks quite frankly - take politics in the UK at the moment for example! Apathy is on the increase, and when you look at how things are at the moment, it's no surprise. I am sick of the blinkered attitude that party politics encourages. Sure, there are some individuals out there, but on the whole, if you're a member of a party then you tow the party line - usually by disagreeing with ANYTHING the opposition say! Aaaaarggghhh...! But ... it's hard to imagine anything but party politics in the West for generations to come to be honest. Perhaps one day, in 20 years time, people in the UK will be so bored of years and years of mediocre government and petty party-political squabbling that NO-ONE will vote. Personally, I'm looking forward to the proposed "None of the above" option on ballot papers - if enough people tick it, then perhaps someone will stand up and listen. Of course, eventually we will be living in a world ruled by enormous "megacorps" and politics as we know it will be a thing of the past. We'll all be begging for a system like we have now when we're all working for the same heartless corporate monster and democracy is nothing but wishful thinking. :-D :-D :-D
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Something needs to change. Party politics sucks quite frankly - take politics in the UK at the moment for example! Apathy is on the increase, and when you look at how things are at the moment, it's no surprise. I am sick of the blinkered attitude that party politics encourages. Sure, there are some individuals out there, but on the whole, if you're a member of a party then you tow the party line - usually by disagreeing with ANYTHING the opposition say! Aaaaarggghhh...! But ... it's hard to imagine anything but party politics in the West for generations to come to be honest. Perhaps one day, in 20 years time, people in the UK will be so bored of years and years of mediocre government and petty party-political squabbling that NO-ONE will vote. Personally, I'm looking forward to the proposed "None of the above" option on ballot papers - if enough people tick it, then perhaps someone will stand up and listen. Of course, eventually we will be living in a world ruled by enormous "megacorps" and politics as we know it will be a thing of the past. We'll all be begging for a system like we have now when we're all working for the same heartless corporate monster and democracy is nothing but wishful thinking. :-D :-D :-D
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Perhaps one day, in 20 years time, people in the UK will be so bored of years and years of mediocre government and petty party-political squabbling that NO-ONE will vote. I'm looking forward to this. If not enough people vote, then the government will no longer be legitimate. So, basically we'll be an anarchist country. I'm not sure what'll happen then - but its bound to be interesting. Kevin
-
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
Maybe I'm naive, but I think if enough people make enough of a stink about current practices, their elected officials have to listen. If they don't they won't get re-elected, their ultimate goal. The problem, partially, is that if people either give up hope in making a change, or simply never cared in the first place. It's difficult for most people to get motivated to care about what's going on in government, this is giving politicians the 'OK' to f*** off when ever they please. I see a change in how peoples ideas are heard, rather than a change in the way officials are elected. I haven't seen it yet, but why don't officials annouce issues on their websites, and take polls there to get a feel for what people are thinking. Or allow for write-in polls at the post office, city halls, etc. Until thinking about the governing process and how to solve current issues is part of the general publics daily thought, I think we'll always have a system of government where the few decide the fate of the many. I still believe that votes matter and letters to your representatives will eventually be heeded. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
-
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? No. It's because people form groups to bolster their own ideas, and then they select the best (loudest, etc) person to champion their ideas. Thus a party is conceived. What's going on in the US (elections next Tuesday!) is ridiculous--candidates are being asked not to run because they will take away votes from the stronger candidate, which will hurt the party. However, since the party (ie the party leader) is supposed to reflect the ideas of the people in that party, is this such a bad thing? Unfortunately, what we seem to have here in the US is a system that has gone quite amok. I'm sure it's not what the founding fathers had intended. (It's my understanding that for a while, the losing party in a presidential race became the vice president). There's no way out, until we have people elected to office by a completely dis-interested third party. And that, ultimately, can only be done by a machine, until the human race becomes advanced enough. But then it wouldn't be politics, would it? (CP'er's unite! [oops, just started to form a party!]) Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
Paul Riley wrote: I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. It has been tried. It's called the UN and it is (IMO) failing miserably. Each member looking out for their own interests and freely making deals with others to support this or that cause, but when cold hard decisions need to be made they waffle to the point of inaction. I'm not a big fan of the current state of politicains of all parties around the world, but I'm afraid that without some kind of party system no decisions will be made on hard topics and we all end up like the EU. Thanks, but no thanks.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
I fail to understand where the animosity towards party politics or partisanship comes from. If I were to guess, I would say it comes from people who are frustrated that people with an opposing point of view actually have the means of electing someone who represents that point of view. Some people want their party, their philosophies to simply dominate the political agenda with no competition and therefore want to be rid of the party system which, in the U.S. anyway, has been primarily responsible for 210+ years of political stability. With the exception of one Civil War, our internal politics has been one of the most remarkably stable in history and that can be attributed directly to our two party system. A two party system forces compromise across broad political lines and generally disenfranchises the extremes. That is a good thing if what one wants is stability. If what one wants is tyranny, than by all means have the standing government select a leader. Such a system would make it much easier for the extremist elements within a society to take over the political agenda. No thanks. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
I think you've just described the government of Italy. Since World War II, they've had more governments than there have been years.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
I think the President should be conscripted. Benjamin Franklin had the right of it when he said that only the greedy and avaricious will seek public office. Anyone who wants the job should not be allowed to do it. Now that we have computers, it should be possible to enter the life experience and skills of every citizen into a database, then program a query to determine the person most able to lead the nation, given current economic, demographic, and international conditions. The draftee would then be required to lead for a prescribed term, without possibility for parole, unless the electors decide at the polls to allow time off for good behavior. Compensation would also be determined by the people, as tax filings would also include a list of government programs to which the people would allocate a dollar share of their tax money to support. This list would include categories for Executive, Judicial, and Legislative salaries and staff expenses. Citizens would, of course, be allowed to opt out of the draft, but doing so would cause their right to vote to be suspended until such time as they allow themselves to be included in the selection process. "Another day done; all targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly." - Jennie Agard, McGuckin Hardware Systems Manager
-
I think the President should be conscripted. Benjamin Franklin had the right of it when he said that only the greedy and avaricious will seek public office. Anyone who wants the job should not be allowed to do it. Now that we have computers, it should be possible to enter the life experience and skills of every citizen into a database, then program a query to determine the person most able to lead the nation, given current economic, demographic, and international conditions. The draftee would then be required to lead for a prescribed term, without possibility for parole, unless the electors decide at the polls to allow time off for good behavior. Compensation would also be determined by the people, as tax filings would also include a list of government programs to which the people would allocate a dollar share of their tax money to support. This list would include categories for Executive, Judicial, and Legislative salaries and staff expenses. Citizens would, of course, be allowed to opt out of the draft, but doing so would cause their right to vote to be suspended until such time as they allow themselves to be included in the selection process. "Another day done; all targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly." - Jennie Agard, McGuckin Hardware Systems Manager
Why not simple random selection? If the average Joe or Jill off the street is incapable of managing the government than that means government has become overly complex. The political system would be simplified until it could be managed by a person selected at random every four years. The mere fact that we all seem to think we need a benevolent dictator of unlimited intellectual prowess is a sure sign that the government is too big, too complicated and too involved in our daily lives. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Theoretical question to keep y'all occupied on a Friday. :) Would it be possible to have a non-partisan government where everyone is elected on their own merits, not by the merits of the party leader, and makes individual decisions based on individual cases rather than following the party line? A Prime-Minister/President could be elected by the elected government, or they could narrow it down to three who then get to sell themselves to the public. If it is possible, is it preferable? I would suggest yes on both counts and yet I wonder why nobody has ever tried it. Is it because party politics is well funded and thus will always outplay any independants? Then what if you ban party politics completely? Is that even possible? I dunno. Just an idea. Western politics needs to change and probably will change in my lifetime, but what is the alternative? Paul I think there're pieces of me you've never seen - Tori Amos, Tear in Your Hand
How about forming a party of Independents ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Why not simple random selection? If the average Joe or Jill off the street is incapable of managing the government than that means government has become overly complex. The political system would be simplified until it could be managed by a person selected at random every four years. The mere fact that we all seem to think we need a benevolent dictator of unlimited intellectual prowess is a sure sign that the government is too big, too complicated and too involved in our daily lives. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Nice points Stan. ... [rant] Look at the word "Representative " it could mean two things a person chosen at random or the current way. If you were to choose a random person from each of your congressional districts would those people not represent the voters of the US. ... Yours and our current sytems can only get more complex as they continue, and somewhere in the future the systems must implode under their own weight. ... As mad as it might sound, I believe the US needs another revolution to revitalize itself. The revolution could be in many forms not necessarily violent. ... As much as like the US, I don't believe Washington DC represents the average Americun very well. In some way this is surprising as the US is doing well economically. [/end rant] Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Why not simple random selection? If the average Joe or Jill off the street is incapable of managing the government than that means government has become overly complex. The political system would be simplified until it could be managed by a person selected at random every four years. The mere fact that we all seem to think we need a benevolent dictator of unlimited intellectual prowess is a sure sign that the government is too big, too complicated and too involved in our daily lives. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Why not simple random selection? You've obviously not visited here. Most of the folks here are too stupid to read headlines; you wouldn't want them making them.:) "When in danger, fear, or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!" - Lorelei and Lapis Lazuli Long
-
Nice points Stan. ... [rant] Look at the word "Representative " it could mean two things a person chosen at random or the current way. If you were to choose a random person from each of your congressional districts would those people not represent the voters of the US. ... Yours and our current sytems can only get more complex as they continue, and somewhere in the future the systems must implode under their own weight. ... As mad as it might sound, I believe the US needs another revolution to revitalize itself. The revolution could be in many forms not necessarily violent. ... As much as like the US, I don't believe Washington DC represents the average Americun very well. In some way this is surprising as the US is doing well economically. [/end rant] Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: I believe the US needs another revolution to revitalize itself. The revolution could be in many forms not necessarily violent. I don't disagree with you on that. Too much political stability may not be such a great thing after all. In all honesty and sincerity, I think Amercan society might well be building towards a revolutionary movement of some kind. Look at how we are divided politically, look at how divisive our last presidential election was. Our system's inherent internal stability absorbed the shock of that well enough - we were hardly even bounced off of our couches. But there is a growing sense in this country that as similar as the two parties might be, they are trying to represent an increasingly incompatible set of political philosophies. At some point that all has to come to a head. My guess would be that it will occur around the year 2020, as the U.S. seems to be on an 80 year historic cycle for great historic events (i.e. Revolution to Civil War was about 80 years, Civil War to WWII was about 80 years, so 2020 should be about the time for it) Given the nature of American society, I would be very dubious about a peaceful revolution here. We are a violent people. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Colin Davies wrote: I believe the US needs another revolution to revitalize itself. The revolution could be in many forms not necessarily violent. I don't disagree with you on that. Too much political stability may not be such a great thing after all. In all honesty and sincerity, I think Amercan society might well be building towards a revolutionary movement of some kind. Look at how we are divided politically, look at how divisive our last presidential election was. Our system's inherent internal stability absorbed the shock of that well enough - we were hardly even bounced off of our couches. But there is a growing sense in this country that as similar as the two parties might be, they are trying to represent an increasingly incompatible set of political philosophies. At some point that all has to come to a head. My guess would be that it will occur around the year 2020, as the U.S. seems to be on an 80 year historic cycle for great historic events (i.e. Revolution to Civil War was about 80 years, Civil War to WWII was about 80 years, so 2020 should be about the time for it) Given the nature of American society, I would be very dubious about a peaceful revolution here. We are a violent people. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: I would be very dubious about a peaceful revolution here. We are a violent people. That I don't disagree with, But a revolution could be entirely Social or Cultural or even Political. Personally I think the "two party system" has become to entangled into the heart of US politics. The fact that various states last century started making laws about the timing and mechanisms of the primaries, was an error. As it legitimized party politics to a level it hadn't been at before. ----- About 4 yrs ago at a General election we had two referendums that were voted for by over 90% of the electors and our elected Politicians have so far ignored them. As far as I'm concerned this makes our current government a criminal government. So if someone were to topple them in a coup they would be within their rights. ----- Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.