Re: [sd-2] Re: empty seats / Lemming City. +added
ro-esp ro-esp at dds.nl
Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:27:39 +0200
Citeren Mark <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> --ro-esp wrote:
> >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.
no jantjes-van-leiden (lame jokes to abort real discussion) on this list please
What other options were there ? Would Kerry have been a major blessing ? Were
there others ?
> -M: With SD2, there are no candidate listings. Every voter is a
even those who don't want to ? strange...
> I recommend studying SD2.
do you have a brochure ? (seriously)
[what I read suggests a trustedness-contest, the problem with that seems to me
that you don't trust people you don't know. Thus, those with the best campaign
would still have an advantage over those who are trustworthy, but not that
> >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,
I know the word gridlock, but don't see how it applies here.If a gremium
becomes powerless, decisions will just be taken elsewhere, or postponed
> and for no philosophical reasons that I know of.
the main reason is to prevent that a govt claims to represent the majority,
when in fact only a minority voted for them
> With SD2, there could be multitudes on non-voting representitives, but only
> the top five would vote.
under mussolini the trains were on time....
> My system is more efficient, more simple,
than how come I don't grasp it yet ? see between  above
> more meritocratic,
could you elaborate ?
> 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%.
you see things rather gloomy.... I'm not saying my voting-system is perfect, or
better or worse than your sd-2. I'm just saying it would be a simple and
effective way to prevent Bush-es from coming to power, and marginalising even
> Lemming City.
what do you mean by that ?