Re: empty seats / Lemming City.

--ro-esp wrote:
>[...] 
> 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-
listed"-option.

-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.

-Shanti
-Mark, Seattle WA USA