Re: empty seats / Lemming City.
Mark parashakti108 at yahoo.com
Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:20:50 -0000
> Citeren Mark:
> > --"Mark" wrote:
> > --"Ryan Mathew Parr" wrote:
> > >R: At the same time, a bottom-up system is exactly the kind of
system that voted Bush in office. Look at all the red necks!
>RE: Those who voted for Bush were only a 25% minority. The problem
is that no one cares about the 50% that didn't vote. What is needed
is a voting-system in which everyone also has the "none-of-those-
-M: The main people who don't care about the 50% non-voter's votes
are the non-voters themselves.
-M: With SD2, there are no candidate listings. Every voter is a
candidate. I recommend studying SD2.
>RE: Those who use it should be represented by empty seats in
parliaments etc. _without_ changeing the criterium for a majority.
This means:51% of the representatives present being for something is
not enough, it takes more than half the seats...Of course, this means
that if only half the voters vote for a candidate, the gremium in
question would be powerless. I don't see that as a problem, since
they would be able to organise referenda, let the decision be taken
by a "higher" or "lower"gremium AND they could organise new elections
with additional parties running. In the US this could lead to an end
for the very strange two-party-system groetjes, Ronaldo
-M: Ronaldo, this sounds like major grid-lock, and for no
philosophical reasons that I know of. With SD2, there could be
multitudes on non-voting representitives, but only the top five would
vote. My system is more efficient, more simple, more meritocratic,
more accountable and more(yes)representive than your system. Since
your system is populistic, at least 49% are guaranteed to be
marginalized, and there is no mechanism to keep the 51% accountable
to the reasoned arguements of the 49%. Lemming City.
-Mark, Seattle WA USA