** Reply to message from Howard Winter <HDRW@hibernaculum.org.uk> on Wed, 17
Aug 2005 12:29:48 +0100 (BST)
> Bob,
>
> Sorry to continue this Off Topic topic!
>
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:41:13 -0700, Bob wrote:
>
> >** Reply to message from "Howard Winter HDRW@hibernaculum.org.uk" on Mon, 15
> >Aug 2005 10:14:02 +0100 (BST)
> >
> >> I don't understand the US political system, but aren't they expected to represent all of their
> constituents,
> >> regardless of their political affiliations?
> >
> >No. The only time they even talk like they represent the common folk is at
> >election time. All of their efforts are to keep themselves in office which
> >means getting lots of campaign money which means that money talks and gets what
> >you want.
>
> I may be being a bit naive, but why don't people then say "You didn't represent me last time, so I'm not
> voting for you this time"?
t has little to do with naivete on your part. It is the standard position of
people who can't tolerate the idea that their man lost the vote. Actually,
democracy is founded on the assumption that the losing party accepts the
verdict of the electorate, no matter how narrow the victory (or loss). The real
danger to the system is the recent dimunition of the willlingness of losers to
do that.
> >> (That's how it works here, but obviously if your view is opposite
> >> theirs, the representation may amount to "listen, analyse, and ignore"! :-)
> >
> >I lived in the UK for a while and did see some difference in the way
> >politicians acted towards the common folk but I did not notice much better
> >actual results, especially from the party in power.
>
> I think that's a function of the "first past the post" electoral system - I am very in favour of changing it
> for "proportional representation" in some form, but the winning parties obviously won't change things to their
Ah. Proportional rrepresentation is what we have here. It is a good way to give
marginal parties the whip hand by putting them in the position of being the
deciding vote in the coalition, thereby leveraging their otherwise modest
power. Be careful what you wish for, lest you actually get it.
> disadvantage! Personally I think it's a farce that I get 1 vote every 5 years, and the Government then does
> what it likes based on that - and calls it "democratic"!
"Democratic", strictly speaking, means exactly what you are implying, namely
that government decisions must be approved by referendum, in the manner of New
Hampshire town halls. This is really very difficult to do for an entire modern
state (even a small one). What modern "democratic" countries are is, in fact,
republics, in which governments are elected periodicly. and act according to
their lights in the name of the electorate until the next election.
>
> >The main thing I liked was
> >the short election process. No political ads on TV for years as it is here.
>
> Yes, the last one was even shorter than some - 1 month from announcement to election. That comes of not
> having fixed terms (except that there is a 5-year limit). There has been talk of centrally-funded election
> campaigns, where each party has money allocated, and can't spend any more, so that there is no way to "buy"
> votes, which does have its merits. But how you decide how much goes to each party is a problem - and what
> happens to Independants? Anyway, enough of my ranting!
>
> I did consider sending the 6 copies of "Why IE is a Bad Thing" to the LoC, but I get the feeling that a
> foreign opinion may go straight in the bin...
What a surprise if that were to happen!
--
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
steward@2rosenthals.com with the command
"unsubscribe os2-wireless_users" in the body
(omit the quotes).
For help with other commands, send a message
to steward@2rosenthals.com with the command
"help" in the body (omit the quotes).
This list is hosted by Rosenthal & Rosenthal
P.O. Box 281, Deer Park, NY 11729-0281. Non-
electronic communications related to content
contained in these messages should be directed
to the above address. (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003)
back to list