How to solve the worlds problems – since Seth asked.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: How to solve the worlds problems – since Seth asked.
(23-05-2015 01:49 PM)Kaneda Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 06:49 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  A friend of mine many years ago suggested that voters be allowed to cast "negative" votes--that is, votes against a candidate for holding public office.

If we allowed for negative voting, I don't think any party would hold office for more than 2 election cycles.

In my book, that wouldn't be a problem.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: How to solve the worlds problems – since Seth asked.
(23-05-2015 02:09 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 01:49 PM)Kaneda Wrote:  If we allowed for negative voting, I don't think any party would hold office for more than 2 election cycles.

In my book, that wouldn't be a problem.

I think you might be talking about anti-plurality. The problem with negative votes is that you might accidentally elect an unknown candidate who may be absolutely horrible.

One problem I have with range voting is that I don't know how voters will vote on unknown candidates. They might just give a default rating of a middle score to unknown candidates and someone may accidentally get elected. I think this can be partially remedied if unmarked candidates automatically have the lowest possible score.

If you use approval voting, I think the amount of voters approving an unknown candidate would be negligible. Two round approval voting is the way to go.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes blahface's post
25-05-2015, 09:28 PM
RE: How to solve the worlds problems – since Seth asked.
The problem with voting for candidates is that you're voting for people who want the office. The last person who should be granted any power over others is someone who WANTS power over others.

I think a government by draft, similar to a jury summons, would be far superior to any construct that peoples political office with people seeking it. Obviously a government by draft would introduce new types of problems, and would not eliminate corruption, but I think on balance the new problems and reduced corruption would give us something a lot more representative than any party system.

So whither the cherished vote - a constitutional right, yanked from our hands?

Good riddance. Nobody's ever voted responsibly, or knowledgeably - certainly never for a human being who makes deception the centerpiece of his resume, as all politicians MUST do to have any hope of winning an office. Anyway, voting for people promulgates and nourishes personality over ideas, charm over wisdom, grooming over decency.

Put draftees at every lever of power, in the legislature, in the court, in the executive seat, and just as juries generally do their utmost to carry out their duty as responsibly as they can, so too would draftees in the halls of government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 09:57 PM
RE: How to solve the worlds problems – since Seth asked.
(25-05-2015 09:28 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  The problem with voting for candidates is that you're voting for people who want the office. The last person who should be granted any power over others is someone who WANTS power over others.

I think a government by draft, similar to a jury summons, would be far superior to any construct that peoples political office with people seeking it. Obviously a government by draft would introduce new types of problems, and would not eliminate corruption, but I think on balance the new problems and reduced corruption would give us something a lot more representative than any party system.

So whither the cherished vote - a constitutional right, yanked from our hands?

Good riddance. Nobody's ever voted responsibly, or knowledgeably - certainly never for a human being who makes deception the centerpiece of his resume, as all politicians MUST do to have any hope of winning an office. Anyway, voting for people promulgates and nourishes personality over ideas, charm over wisdom, grooming over decency.

Put draftees at every lever of power, in the legislature, in the court, in the executive seat, and just as juries generally do their utmost to carry out their duty as responsibly as they can, so too would draftees in the halls of government.

And while we're at it, we can draft random people to act as engineers and technicians too.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: