Kristofer Munsterhjelm said:
> - Thus, it's not too hard for me to think there might be sets of
> rules that would make parties minor parts of politics. Those would
> not work by simply outlawing parties, totalitarian style. Instead,
> the rules would arrange the dynamics so that there's little ben
On 06/27/2012 07:10 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I am enjoying this discussion and I thank Fred for starting it. However,
I have only a little to add:
1. Under plurality, parties are a necessary evil; primaries weed the
field and prevent vote-splitting. Of course, plurality itself is an
entirely unn
Juho and Fred,
> > (a) a *primary* electoral system
> > (b) one that sponsors candidates for *public* office
> > (c) where voting is restricted to *private* members
> >
> > Specifically (c) is no longer possible. ... In such a world, what
> > *other* form of political domination could take hold?
On 5.7.2012, at 23.24, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Hi, Juho
>
> You raised a multitude of points.
>
>
> re: "I agree that getting rid of the financial ties and
> getting rid of the party internal control on who can
> be elected would reduce oligarchy within the parties
> and power of money
Hi, Juho
You raised a multitude of points.
re: "I agree that getting rid of the financial ties and
getting rid of the party internal control on who can
be elected would reduce oligarchy within the parties
and power of money.
That's a promising start. It gives us two basic goals
On 5.7.2012, at 21.22, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
> Juho:
>
> I didn't understand yet fully how the voter can vote. Is it possible to vote
> A>B>C and (separately) give the national party vote to party P? (where A is
> the "independent" of party P)
>
> [endquote]
>
> In a topplng-up system
Juho:
I didn't understand yet fully how the voter can vote. Is it possible to
vote A>B>C and (separately) give the national party vote to party P? (where
A is the "independent" of party P)
[endquote]
In a topplng-up system, you can participate in two separate elections:
1. You can vote for who
