[freevideom]

Donniston

I'm not interested in a program that both you and I agree on either. I don't quite understand where you got that.

I already have people that agree with my platform. HE HE, Please note the word "MY", and proceed to my response to your next "Paragraph".
We just happened to form a party to advance it. You and I can present our individual programs to the American people and we will see which one gets advanced.This aint it, but,---I thought you got lost, and I am glad you are still here. I had just hoped there would be more posters willing to contribute. One thing tho, I, unlike you, are not promoting MY party, but promoting Ideas, which in combination with the ideas of other posters might form the Basis of a new party.

And my ideas and the ideas of the Falconist Party are one in the same. The only ideas I find dissagreement with my own party are as follows:(This one is) Together with your use of the word "MY" above, and now' OUR", It would appear that this is basically "YOUR" Platform, with the addition of the veiws of others. (Ending as YOUR party.) (nothing wrong with that, but I always call a Spade a spade.,

[LIST=1][*]I don't think cost prohibitive taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are a good idea. I'm in favor of rationing alcohol and tobacco myself[*]I'm not in favor of the $3/gallon gasoline tax. I think this will eventually be repealled from the platformI would oppose both of those.
[*]I think we need to eliminate the military service requirement from our immigration plank in our platformO must have missed that one, but if you were stating that immigants would have a "Specoal" place in our services. I would disagree
[*]I think we need to re-define the plank in our platform where alternative lifestyles are frowned upon, but not necessarily outlawedwhy even frown, they are all people, and need to be included.
[*]I might propose to the Falconist Party that the President and XVP are elected by the US Congress every five years. I agree but why five years rather than the present four years.
[*]I'm leaning towards repealling the flat tax and replacing it with a progressive consumption tax Are you talking about instead of, or in addition to an income tax

But sue me if my ideas and those of a political party are almost one in the same. You been at work on your program for 48 years yet nobody has adopted your ideas. You either got to sell your ideas to an existing party or form a new one if you hope to see your ideas turned into reality. If it were an existing party, with the changes,it would no longer be the existing party.

I may not agree with your ideas but I enjoy watching new movements trying to shake up the status quo with their ideas. Good luck.

Looking forward to more

[WapSaibiar]

1. The house of representatives is composed of two Representatives from each of the congresssional districts, This is a representative (democratic) -one person/one vote system. Would these be the first and second vote-getters, or winning-party-take-all, or something else? Two reps is fine if it's first and second vote-getters, as winner-take-all skews things too much.

All elections, and these especially, shoud be done with acceptance voting. That way, if 70% think A would do a good job, and 60% think B would do well, they're elected, instead of losing to candidates who may have the strongest 'fanatical core' but are otherwise held in a negative light by the electorate.

1. Either now, using approximate or intrim census figures, or shortly after the new census is completed. Two or more teams from each state, consisting of one person from each party... Each party, meaning Dem, Repub, Lib, Green, Commie, Reform, Constitution, and Nazi? And how are disputes internal to a given group to be resolved? And if they're not resolved, what then?

When the two or more teams come together, thay should be able to have a properly completed job. Except that you assume that each group's 'leading edge' will meet nicely as they work through their portion of the reapportionment. Highly unlikely, problably resulting in terribly mishapen districts at such junctions and/or partisan bickering over which group(s) must cede how much territiory to avoid this and how the final districts will be drawn up.

A non-partisan (to the extent that such a thing is possible) commission should review plans submitted by all interested parties (not meaning political parties) and declare a winner based on scoring criteria determined well in advance, consisting primarily of the shortest total length of all district borders. (I went into a lot more detail in another thread, I think one specifically on gerrymandering.)


There are other places I disagree, but think those are simply my opinions, rather than being demonstrably better approaches.

[Bonioners]

EVIL Thank you for responding, I was beginning to think that No one was interested in correcting (or purfecting) our form of government. I had begun to think I was all alone. Even the one person who had taken an interest had disappeared.

(this is a quote of mine.) 1. The house of representatives is composed of two Representatives from each of the congresssional districts, This is a representative (democratic) -one person/one vote system. I was very persistent in looking for typographical errors, but it seems I failed to look for "TYPICALgraphical" errors, this is a blatant error. I intended, and meant ONE Representative

THUS,

Would these be the first and second vote-getters, or winning-party-take-all, or something else? Two reps is fine if it's first and second vote-getters, as winner-take-all skews things too much.This question is therefore irrelevant. OK???

(quote)All elections, and these especially, shoud be done with acceptance voting. That way, if 70% think A would do a good job, and 60% think B would do well, they're elected, instead of losing to candidates who may have the strongest 'fanatical core' but are otherwise held in a negative light by the electorate.Would you explain this further??? I don't understand


(quote)1. Either now, using approximate or intrim census figures, or shortly after the new census is completed. Two or more teams from each state, consisting of one person from each party...

Each party, meaning Dem, Repub, Lib, Green, Commie, Reform, Constitution, and Nazi? And how are disputes internal to a given group to be resolved? And if they're not resolved, what then?Not quite meaning that. Because, I don't beleive that there will still be a Democratic or Republican party by then (See my original post on this thread) I was speaking of the then existing parties,---and how is would be resolved would depend upon how many parties existed, and perhaps (just perhaps) based on the size of their registered following.

Quote:
When the two or more teams come together, thay should be able to have a properly completed job.

Except that you assume that each group's 'leading edge' will meet nicely as they work through their portion of the reapportionment. I dod not intend to imply that the groups would not be in contact with each other. Highly unlikely, problably resulting in terribly mishapen districts at such junctions and/or partisan bickering over which group(s) must cede how much territiory to avoid this and how the final districts will be drawn up.Please consider the other condiions I suggested about their actions Including space, and a running accessment of the remaining numbers to be apportioned. Further, If they were a non-partisan group, as suggested, plus the panel. of final judgement, (again Non-partisan,) There should be no extreme partisan bickering.

(quote)A non-partisan (to the extent that such a thing is possible) commission should review plans submitted by all interested parties (not meaning political parties) and declare a winner based on scoring criteria determined well in advance, consisting primarily of the shortest total length of all district borders. (I went into a lot more detail in another thread, I think one specifically on gerrymandering.)Can you link it? or perhaps copy it here? I have not seen it.


There are other places I disagree, but think those are simply my opinions, rather than being demonstrably better approaches.Strange, but I thought that was what we were considering ---simply "OPINIONS.

As far as I am concerned, ALL opinions are welcome. "Have at it"

[jerzeygymwolf]

The United States government is likely the best in the world, but is far from perfect. It is going to take time, but we can do better.
For one thing, we have to discard or at least ignore our present designation of parties. We are built on the two party system, but there is no more pure Democrat, or pure Republican. We now have ALTRA Conservatives,and ULTRA Liberals on the two ends of the spectrum, with persons leaning towards conservatism, or liberalism, and moderates in between. but you will find Cons and Libs on BOTH sides of the isle.

Everybody complains but no one offers a plan so here is my case for a NEW United States Government. Obviously, There would have to be a constitutional convention, or at the very least, some new amedments to the Constitution.
...

As a general principle, I object to all prescriptions of 'solutions' to address 'problems' that haven't been properly defined at the outset.

To begin with, it is not 'self-evident' that the United States Government is "likely the best in the world". It might be, but it might not be - that has not yet been definitively determined by anyone to my knowledge.

Indeed, the parliamentarian model has been more widely and successfully adopted than the American presidential model - if anything remotely democratic is your concern (that is to say, the presidential model has more real-world examples of perversions to autocracy than the parliamentarian model). I'm not saying (here) that one is better than the other - only that your assumption that the American model is better than the other is totally unsubstantiated.

That being said, you also assert that there seems to be something wrong with the present American format of governance (and I generally agree with that assertion), but you haven't said just what is the key problem to which your solution is meant to address?

From a theoretical perspective, this is critically important in the process of evaluating the efficiency or effectiveness of any of your proposals in achieving that desired goal.

Thus, doniston, if you want a learned and reasonable critique of any aspect of your proposals from me, you shall have to first provide some kind of answer to the above.

My reason for insisting upon the point is because I detect quite a bit of 'parliamentary' type changes in your suggestions, amongst other theoretical directions. Evaluation is impossible without a framework.

[GenManagerS]

Sorry, I didn't post this thread as a bais for arguement or debate. but simply as a discussion.As a general principle, I object to all prescriptions of 'solutions' to address 'problems' that haven't been properly defined at the outset.You seem to be a theorist rather than an Activist, My error

To begin with, it is not 'self-evident' that the United States Government is "likely the best in the world". Let's see now, "self evident that it is "LIKELY"???? I think that is quite obvious, at least to the majority of the people on this forum.

It might be, but it might not be - that has not yet been definitively determined by anyone to my knowledge. HMM, I beleive that has been determined by the majority of the people of the United States. Don't you know anyone who lives south of your border, and north of mine????

Indeed, the parliamentarian model has been more widely and successfully adopted than the American presidential model - if anything remotely democratic is your concern (that is to say, the presidential model has more real-world examples of perversions to autocracy than the parliamentarian model). I'm not saying (here) that one is better than the other - only that your assumption that the American model is better than the other is totally unsubstantiated.Well, I got to admit--------------
You've lost me there

That being said, you also assert that there seems to be something wrong with the present American format of governance (and I generally agree with that assertion), but you haven't said just what is the key problem to which your solution is meant to address? SEE MY FIRST COMMENT, Further, for your edification, It is my government, and I see many things wrong with it, and my plan is just a partial solution(subject of course to being put into effect)

From a theoretical perspective, this is critically important in the process of evaluating the efficiency or effectiveness of any of your proposals in achieving that desired goal. HMM, back to my original response AGAIN.

Thus, doniston, if you want a learned and reasonable critique of any aspect of your proposals from me, you shall have to first provide some kind of answer to the above.

My reason for insisting upon the point is because I detect quite a bit of 'parliamentary' type changes in your suggestions, amongst other theoretical directions. Evaluation is impossible without a framework.REPEAT

That wasn't what I was looking for. "T'was discussion." Apparently "My mistake"

[priceyicey]

Acceptance Voting:
Rather than a contest of A vs B, with C etc as possible spoilers, all elections are essentially constests of A vs not A, B vsnot B, C vs not C, etc. Of a given field of candidates, the voter selects all that are acceptable, and the most accepted candidate wins. Our current system doesn't always come up with the 'wrong answer', perhaps better worded as 'not the best answer', but it certainly Can, as shown with examples below.

Case #1 - Standard, 2-candidate race. 20% like A and dislike B. 30% like B and dislike A. The remaining 50% think either would do a good job, but when forced to actively select one or the other, divide 40-10 towards A. A wins the election 60-40. And 70% of the people are pleased with the outcome, thinking A will do a good job. However 80% would have been happy had B been elected.

Case #2: 4-way race (easily expanded to n-way). 15% like A and only A. 15% like B and only B. 8% like C and only C. 5% like D and only D. 10% like A or B and split evenly in actual voting. 25% like A,C, or D, but when forced to pick just one pick A, as A has the best chance of winning. 22% like like B or C, but when forced to pick just one pick B, as B has the best chance of winning. Under our current system, A wins with 45% (or 52% if one ignores C & D and/or their supporters don't bother with elections where their votes effectively don't count anyway), and 45% of the people are pleased. The majority of the people are Not pleased and think A will do a poor job. If one were allowed to use acceptance voting, C would win, with 55% pleased.

Acceptance voting has several added benefits for voters. Because acceptance voting eliminates the lesser of two evils paradigm, more candidates will come forward. (I recall one election where I was Pro-X and my choices were Anti-X and Very Anti-X.) Further, it allows voters to vote for what they want rather than a single best fit: "Anybody but that @$$ B", "Anybody who's pro-X and pro-Y", "any female", etc. Lastly, it also cuts down on inappropriate negative campaigning. If you run ads where A calls B names, B will lose votes, A might lose votes, and C, D, etc will stay the same or even gain, making true mud-slinging a losing proposition.


Reapportionment:

Couldn't find the link, so I'll rewrite it. A commission will be set up to score redistricting maps submitted by outside parties. The scoring criteria should be established Well in advance, both to prevent using them to facilitate gerrymandering and to allow any submitters to score their own maps and, if necessary, point out fraudulent winners. To prevent flooding the commision with duplicate or spurious maps, a submission fee would be charged. ($1000?) A portion (half?) of this fee would go towards commission expenses. To encourage valid submissions, offset the expense of valid submissions, and reward the efforts of those who create the best map, a portion of the total fees collected (25%?) would be divided among the submitters of maps that meet certain minimum requirements (50th percentile, with a single rebate divided appropriately in cases of essentially duplicate submissions?), and a portion (25%?) would go to the submitter of the winning map.

My initial thoughts on scoring are that they would be based on the sum of the weighted lengths of all district boundaries. The following multipliers will be applied as appropriate, with compound multipliers allowed: 1.1 if within a municipal boundary, 0.95 if following an existing district boundary, 0.90 if following a 'natural boundary' defined as a municipal border, county border, or center of a river, navigable waterway, or divided highway of at least 4 lanes. (Low scores win, obviously.)

[pharmaclid]

Acceptance Voting:
Rather than a contest of A vs B, with C etc as possible spoilers, all elections are essentially constests of A vs not A, B vsnot B, C vs not C, etc. Of a given field of candidates, the voter selects all that are acceptable, and the most accepted candidate wins. Our current system doesn't always come up with the 'wrong answer', perhaps better worded as 'not the best answer', but it certainly Can, as shown with examples below.

Case #1 - Standard, 2-candidate race. 20% like A and dislike B. 30% like B and dislike A. The remaining 50% think either would do a good job, but when forced to actively select one or the other, divide 40-10 towards A. A wins the election 60-40. And 70% of the people are pleased with the outcome, thinking A will do a good job. However 80% would have been happy had B been elected.

Case #2: 4-way race (easily expanded to n-way). 15% like A and only A. 15% like B and only B. 8% like C and only C. 5% like D and only D. 10% like A or B and split evenly in actual voting. 25% like A,C, or D, but when forced to pick just one pick A, as A has the best chance of winning. 22% like like B or C, but when forced to pick just one pick B, as B has the best chance of winning. Under our current system, A wins with 45% (or 52% if one ignores C & D and/or their supporters don't bother with elections where their votes effectively don't count anyway), and 45% of the people are pleased. The majority of the people are Not pleased and think A will do a poor job. If one were allowed to use acceptance voting, C would win, with 55% pleased.

Acceptance voting has several added benefits for voters. Because acceptance voting eliminates the lesser of two evils paradigm, more candidates will come forward. (I recall one election where I was Pro-X and my choices were Anti-X and Very Anti-X.) Further, it allows voters to vote for what they want rather than a single best fit: "Anybody but that @$$ B", "Anybody who's pro-X and pro-Y", "any female", etc. Lastly, it also cuts down on inappropriate negative campaigning. If you run ads where A calls B names, B will lose votes, A might lose votes, and C, D, etc will stay the same or even gain, making true mud-slinging a losing proposition.[COLOR="Blue"]I'll have to think about that. It does have some merit, and I have heard of it somewhere before, although
it was in reference to choosing candidates rather than elections.COLOR]


Reapportionment:

Couldn't find the link, so I'll rewrite it. A commission will be set up to score redistricting maps submitted by outside parties. The scoring criteria should be established Well in advance, both to prevent using them to facilitate gerrymandering and to allow any submitters to score their own maps and, if necessary, point out fraudulent winners. To prevent flooding the commision with duplicate or spurious maps, a submission fee would be charged. ($1000?) A portion (half?) of this fee would go towards commission expenses. To encourage valid submissions, offset the expense of valid submissions, and reward the efforts of those who create the best map, a portion of the total fees collected (25%?) would be divided among the submitters of maps that meet certain minimum requirements (50th percentile, with a single rebate divided appropriately in cases of essentially duplicate submissions?), and a portion (25%?) would go to the submitter of the winning map. Without consideration of scoting, can you imagine the confusion ??? I'm sorry, but I am afraid it would only result in a worse condition which I might call PRE-Gerrymandering Plus a lovely new source of graft

My initial thoughts on scoring are that they would be based on the sum of the weighted lengths of all district boundaries. The following multipliers will be applied as appropriate, with compound multipliers allowed: 1.1 if within a municipal boundary, 0.95 if following an existing district boundary, 0.90 if following a 'natural boundary' defined as a municipal border, county border, or center of a river, navigable waterway, or divided highway of at least 4 lanes. (Low scores win, obviously.) I think this would be way to complicated for such a simple action.

Please note, that I had already done that in a rather populous state, and the only people against it were the gerrymanderors.

[blenIgnigeSef]

That wasn't what I was looking for. "T'was discussion." Apparently "My mistake"

I said I'll give you a learned and reasonable critique of your proposals - or discuss them if you prefer that term. However, it is impossible to do without the basic assertion of a problem. Without a definition of a problem, your solutions just hang in the air as your personal wishlist. That is to say, they have no substantive meaning. Indeed, several of your proscriptions are contradictory which is why I inquired as to the problem that is proposed to be solved by such 'innovations'.

You seem to be a theorist rather than an Activist, My error

Yes, I approach politics and philosophy from a theoretical perspective. It is a product of my university education in these fields. I do have an Honours BA degree in Political Science (and an MA in Political Philosophy). Obviously I'm not qualified to assess your proposals.

Let's see now, "self evident that it is "LIKELY"???? I think that is quite obvious, at least to the majority of the people on this forum.

Rather it is obvious to an apparently large number of Americans (including yourself) that anything American is apparently superior to all other things. This premise is held on faith and patriotism (and a healthy dose of propaganda), not any learned substantiation.

HMM, I beleive that has been determined by the majority of the people of the United States. Don't you know anyone who lives south of your border, and north of mine????

Looks like you are moving into Simon territory now - asserting that I am wrong by definition of you being right.

Well, I got to admit--------------
You've lost me there

Indeed. I've offered a clear and obvious critique based on real world evidence against your opening statement upon which you base your proposals and you are speechless in reply.

SEE MY FIRST COMMENT, Further, for your edification, It is my government, and I see many things wrong with it, and my plan is just a partial solution(subject of course to being put into effect)

It isn't a "solution" until the problem is identified. Merely asserting that you don't like the present way the US government is run does not constitute a problem for anyone but you.

As for my "edification", I respectfully submit that trying to play consdescention games with me is quite tiresome.

HMM, back to my original response AGAIN.

Okie dokie. (again)

[SergZHy67]

Mad_Michael


ote:
Originally Posted by doniston
That wasn't what I was looking for. "T'was discussion." Apparently "My mistake"

I said I'll give you a learned and reasonable critique of your proposals - or discuss them if you prefer that term. However, it is impossible to do without the basic assertion of a problem. Without a definition of a problem, your solutions just hang in the air as your personal wishlist. That is to say, they have no substantive meaning.In each case,(or at least most) I beleive I gave reasons for my wish to change the particular situation. If you want to consider that a wish list, so be it.
Indeed, several of your proscriptions are contradictory I would be interested in knowing whichwhich is why I inquired as to the problem that is proposed to be solved by such 'innovations'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by doniston
You seem to be a theorist rather than an Activist, My error

Yes, I approach politics and philosophy from a theoretical perspective. It is a product of my university education in these fields. I do have an Honours BA degree in Political Science (and an MA in Political Philosophy). Obviously I'm not qualified to assess your proposals. Hmm, you seem to think I was being insulting. I WAS NOT, just honest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by doniston
Let's see now, "self evident that it is "LIKELY"???? I think that is quite obvious, at least to the majority of the people on this forum.



Rather it is obvious to an apparently large number of Americans (including yourself) that anything American is apparently superior to all other things. This premise is held on faith and patriotism (and a healthy dose of propaganda), not any learned substantiation. Did you say Political science, or psychology, Now "YOU sound like Jester (Trueheart) The above was my meaning, tho apparently it is the present beleif of a good portion of the rest of the world.[




Quote:
Originally Posted by doniston
HMM, I beleive that has been determined by the majority of the people of the United States. Don't you know anyone who lives south of your border, and north of mine????



Looks like you are moving into Simon territory now - asserting that I am wrong by definition of you being right.HA HA, Now THAT is funny. I neither said nor intended any such thing Are you sure you are not a clone of his???


Quote:
Originally Posted by doniston
Well, I got to admit--------------
You've lost me there

Indeed. I've offered a clear and obvious critique based on real world evidence against your opening statement upon which you base your proposals and you are speechless in reply. Speachless?? I have no idea what you were talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by doniston
SEE MY FIRST COMMENT, Further, for your edification, It is my government, and I see many things wrong with it, and my plan is just a partial solution(subject of course to being put into effect)

It isn't a "solution" until the problem is identified. Merely asserting that you don't like the present way the US government is run does not constitute a problem for anyone but you.NONSENSE

As for my "edification", I respectfully submit that trying to play consdescention games with me is quite tiresome.Man, you are really thin skined. What in He11 is wrong with using the word edification. In the past, I thought you and I had gotten along rather well. Now you seem to have a chip on your shoulder.

SORRY I BOTHERED YOU.




__________________
Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'.

[encunnibriG]

SORRY I BOTHERED YOU.

No problem. No chip.

Just rational critique. If you don't want it, that's fine.