Politics 2.0 - what do you think?

TomTester

@mark/tex: the problem in the US does not lie with the absence of direct voting, but in the "all or nothing"
approach (all votes for one state go to the 'winner') and the absence of a coalition government (IMHO the
fairest form of government, even small minorities can get a vote, and if the house is sufficiently 'fractured'
the end result of any new legislation is always a compromise). The presidential veto would have to go too.

@hst: there's a significant anti-immigrant bias in the USA too. Despite holding a greencard and paying taxes
in this coutry for 10+ years one cannot vote, not even on a local level (e.g. mayor of the city), unless one
becomes a citizen first.

It seems to make sense at a basic level, but look more closely... since neither voting nor becoming a citizen
requires ANY proof of understanding of the electoral system & issues at hand, why would that slight difference
of a passport vs a greencard matter? Is it all about "pledging allegiance to this flag" (and never question your
government)? I pledged allegiance to the capitalist system and the economy for which it stands...

tangent: I've been at a swearing in for citizens in Ohio, and a GOP representative passed out
cards to have new Americans register to vote then told them to vote Republican...

Hence I'm all for a "pass the test, get to vote" approach.
Answer 5 simple questions, and if you get 3 out of 5 right, you get to vote.

Question #1: Was Saddam involved in the attack of 9/11 (YES/NO)
Question #2: Please mark the USA on this map of the world
Question #3: Should women be allowed to vote (YES/NO)
...

@strawberries & corpocracy, see this little gem by Carlin: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14837.htm

And finally a nice quote:

When 25 percent of the population believe the President should be impeached
and 51 percent of the population believe in UFOs, you may or may not need a new President,
but you definitely need a new population.
~ Harry Reasoner

strawberries

i totally agree wanderer. over here in the UK, politicians are breeding quicker than rabbits, over the past 10 years. We need less of the useless twats. and all their useless travel junkets and conferences have to be paid for by the taxpayer. @minisweeper....good point. I have always said, imagine how the billions in Iraq could have been spent at home, on the poor pensioners, awful hospital services, etc, etc. Imagine the number of new schools and hospitals that could have been built with this money. In the USA, look at the levies that were not built up due to lack of govt funding......and the loss of that city to the waves.

TomTester

@straw: wars are unassailable mechanisms for government to prop up failing companies & economies while uniting a divided electorate.
War spending is rarely questioned and easily rebuffed ("you are not a patriot, think of our boys, are you with us or against us?").
Wars have served this purpose well on both sides of the Atlantic throughout history...

I'm still waiting for a true world war on poverty and hunger...

Pol

I think a major step forward would be switching to a Condorcet voting system instead of the plurality method. People should be able to express their choices, not just their favourite, because otherwise, strategic voting is an inevitability. The two-party system delays progress and encourages "corporocracy" (or oligarchy, more generally); with a good ranked system, the two-party system would fall apart and people would be able to express their real preferences.

strawberries

spot on Tom Tester. You're spot on. I've said the exact same thing in recent years, tho my target has been another mass killer, cancer i.e. I don't want a 'war on terror', i want a 'war on cancer' cancer after all has a 50 percent chance of killing me, and my friends/family....a terrorist has a 0.0000001 chance. We need to spend our billiuons on targetting the *real* killer of our people.

TomTester

@straw I'm not against people dying as a result of personal lifestyle choices. It's a natural selection mechanism. (FWIW, I do smoke)
Poverty and hunger however are (usually) by circumstance, not by choice, hence more worthy of attention (IMHO).

Anyway, let me not hijack this discussion on rap music... back to politics 2.0 (beta).

A little clarification on the '5 questions' requirement. I think everyone with the RIGHT to vote should also be
held to their DUTY of acquiring the knowledge required to make an INFORMED vote. Simply voting Democrat
or Republican because 'daddy always did' is not acceptable and their votes should be discarded or counted less.
(note: as an expat in the USA I do NOT vote in the country where I was born, exactly because I am not informed)

I am a proponent of a coalition-government approach because it provides a feedback loop to the voter that is
now missing in US elections. A voter who knows their vote CAN make the difference, because the small party
representing their minority opinion CAN get a seat in the house, WILL vote to make that difference.