Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: Rudi's push to save America!!!
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91942 is a reply to message #91934] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 23:17   |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So your "quirk" is almost like having a ballot space for "none of the
above?"
Because that's another improvement I wouldn't mind seeing.
It sounds like your preferential voting system is leading the way, and
we in the USA could learn a thing or two from Australia.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Kim wrote:
>> How does your preferential system work?
>
> It's pretty basic, but effective for mine. Imagine you have 4 candidates.
> You get four boxes. I am paraphrasing here, but the paraphrase will be "conceptually
> accurate" if you get my drift:
>
> "You must place a number in every box. The numbers must start from one, and
> be sequential".
>
> That is basically it. So, for example, you can (and I have many times) give
> a 1 and 2 to a couple of people who are highly unlikely to win, and give
> 3 and 4 to the major parties. Assuming a major party victory, your vote ends
> up, in full strength, being counted as a vote for whoever you put 3rd, just
> as if you voted them as 1. As they count the votes, once it it established
> that a given candidate cannot possibly win, their preferences are distributed
> to other candidates, if you get my drift. At the end of the count, every
> single valid vote will be in one of two piles, being the victor, or the runner
> up.
>
> Additionally, if you read my legal paraphrase above, there is a little quirk
> in the system. It was found in a court of law that placing " 1 2 3 3
> " in your boxes counted as being sequential. As a result, for example, you
> can deliberately vote for one person, or another, but refuse to allow your
> vote to go to any of your non-preferences. As you can see, this quirk is
> an amazingly powerful little tool for democracy. Of course the "powers that
> be" didn't like that at all. Unfortunately for them, fortunately for us,
> changing the voting system requires a referendum, so the whole country would
> have to be informed of the issue and would then vote on it. The powers that
> be would have known that such an event would serve only to educate the public
> on how powerful this tool could be, and the vote would likely not go in their
> favour, so the "quirk" still exists. The bad new is that they actually made
> it illegal to publicise it. A couple of years back somebody was actually
> put in prison for a couple of years for informing the public of a perfectly
> legal way to vote.
>
> Go figure.
>
> But that's the system. Basically if you number each candidate sequentially
> in order of preference, until you run out of people you like, at which point
> you put the same number in each box. Assuming you haven't used the quirk
> to avoid your vote ending up with somebody you dislike, you will always end
> up with a full strength vote against one of the two most popular candidates.
>
> I actually think our system is really good. If the Australian public knew
> how to use it, and, for that matter, who to vote for for their own best interests,
> it would work pretty well methinks.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91943 is a reply to message #91942] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 23:59 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeh, I actually think it's pretty close to ideal. I have given it thought
over the years and can't really work out anything I could justifiably change
and say "That would make it better". Any other modifications risk things
like votes not ending up equal, or incorrect votes being included which don't
reflect the voters intention, etc.
Clearly it should be legal to publicise it, but aside from that, I reckon
it's a very nice system. Rare in political land...
Cheers,
Kim.
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>So your "quirk" is almost like having a ballot space for "none of the
>above?"
>
>Because that's another improvement I wouldn't mind seeing.
>
>It sounds like your preferential voting system is leading the way, and
>we in the USA could learn a thing or two from Australia.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>Kim wrote:
>>> How does your preferential system work?
>>
>> It's pretty basic, but effective for mine. Imagine you have 4 candidates.
>> You get four boxes. I am paraphrasing here, but the paraphrase will be
"conceptually
>> accurate" if you get my drift:
>>
>> "You must place a number in every box. The numbers must start from one,
and
>> be sequential".
>>
>> That is basically it. So, for example, you can (and I have many times)
give
>> a 1 and 2 to a couple of people who are highly unlikely to win, and give
>> 3 and 4 to the major parties. Assuming a major party victory, your vote
ends
>> up, in full strength, being counted as a vote for whoever you put 3rd,
just
>> as if you voted them as 1. As they count the votes, once it it established
>> that a given candidate cannot possibly win, their preferences are distributed
>> to other candidates, if you get my drift. At the end of the count, every
>> single valid vote will be in one of two piles, being the victor, or the
runner
>> up.
>>
>> Additionally, if you read my legal paraphrase above, there is a little
quirk
>> in the system. It was found in a court of law that placing " 1 2 3
3
>> " in your boxes counted as being sequential. As a result, for example,
you
>> can deliberately vote for one person, or another, but refuse to allow
your
>> vote to go to any of your non-preferences. As you can see, this quirk
is
>> an amazingly powerful little tool for democracy. Of course the "powers
that
>> be" didn't like that at all. Unfortunately for them, fortunately for us,
>> changing the voting system requires a referendum, so the whole country
would
>> have to be informed of the issue and would then vote on it. The powers
that
>> be would have known that such an event would serve only to educate the
public
>> on how powerful this tool could be, and the vote would likely not go in
their
>> favour, so the "quirk" still exists. The bad new is that they actually
made
>> it illegal to publicise it. A couple of years back somebody was actually
>> put in prison for a couple of years for informing the public of a perfectly
>> legal way to vote.
>>
>> Go figure.
>>
>> But that's the system. Basically if you number each candidate sequentially
>> in order of preference, until you run out of people you like, at which
point
>> you put the same number in each box. Assuming you haven't used the quirk
>> to avoid your vote ending up with somebody you dislike, you will always
end
>> up with a full strength vote against one of the two most popular candidates.
>>
>> I actually think our system is really good. If the Australian public knew
>> how to use it, and, for that matter, who to vote for for their own best
interests,
>> it would work pretty well methinks.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91950 is a reply to message #91913] |
Thu, 25 October 2007 03:10 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ,
You really, really need to read Richard Clarke 's "Against All Enemies"
before you insist that Clinton ignored Bin Laden. It's a bit of a dry read
at times, but it makes pretty clear who ignored the Al Caeda threat.
Of course, you're free to buy into some party line BS discrediting
Richard Clarke, but I haven't actually heard any, and I have no reason to
doubt his story, especially considering that before Clinton, he worked for
Reagan and King George's dad. That's a total of three republican
presidents. :)
S
"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote in message
news:471f7235@linux...
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:471f602a$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey Deej,
>>
>> You can respond off list if you like, but I've never been able to
>> understand
>> the vitriol that some types of conservatives (remember, I consider myself
>> a conservative) for the Clintons. I eventually figured it out with Bill,
>> I think it was personal. So many 'social conservatives' spend their lives
>> doing what they're supposed to do, staying out of trouble, denying
>> themselves
>> things they would like to enjoy, all in the belief that it's the right
>> thing
>> to do for themselves and society. Then Bill shows up, a draft dodging,
>> pot
>> smoking, wife cheating hick from the STICKS of Arkansas who by rights
>> should
>> have been a city council member in Little Rock driving a 12 year old El
>> Dorado.
>> He never denied himself a damn thing, from Biggie Fries to fancy cigars
>> to
>> hummers from interns, and he got to be president fer effs sake. So, he's
>> a personal affront, which I get.
>
> I "dodged" the draft by staying in school. I've never cheated on my wife,
> but before I married I did cheat "with" certain of others' wives (and
> somethimes I was even aware that they "were" wives). I "did" inhale
> (among other more radical and destructive behaviours) and now the world is
> a better place (trust me on this) because I no longer do this, but I don't
> really have a problem with others partaking of their substance of choice,
> up to the point that it infringes on my safety..............and back
> during my salad days, I had no problem lying through my teeth so stay out
> of trouble regarding possible repercussions from various entities who took
> issue with my philandering and recreational hobbies. My SAT scores in
> 1968 could have easily landed me a spot at an ivy league institution but,
> being a Texas hick, and all, I stayed in the south where I felt I could do
> the most damage. :). I really had no problem with Bills history and
> behavioural propensities. Hell, I could really relate to the guy. He and I
> had some things in common and I would be the ultimate hypocrite to judge
> him on moral grounds. OTOH, I certainly had no business being president.
>
> Problem with Bill was that he was supposed o be watching the store and
> thinking in terms of our national security and energy policy (which are
> synonymous and completely interrelated) instead of running a popularity
> contest based on global opinion polls. I don't have the time right now to
> rehash all of his disastrous energy and foriegn policy decisions, but
> first and foremost, IMO, was to make sure that our "allies" didn't play us
> and do exactly what they did with turning the sanctions on Sadaam to his
> advantage and "balancing the budget" on the back of cheap oil while
> ignoring the declaration of war that was publicly broadcast by Bin Ladin
> and discouraging domestic energy production while simultaneously ramping
> up petrochemical imports as a quick fix to create the illusion of a healty
> economy propped up on the fantasy that OPEC would be "our buddies".
>
>>
>> However, Hillary seems to me to be deeply, deeply vanilla. She was
>> rabidly
>> pro Iraq war, is saber rattling against Iran and Syria, wants to expand
>> NATO
>> to Russia's doorstep, is probably the most pro-Israel candidate
>> imaginable,
>> and more than any other leading Democrat appears like she might actually
>> be a teensy bit Christian. Not a Bible thumper of course, but her
>> occasional
>> statements about god and family sound at least potentially sincere. So,
>> and
>> I'm asking this sincerely, why is she diabolical? Not annoying (she is),
>> power hungry (comes with wanting the job), unwilling to answer questions
>> straight (so are they all), or maybe a dyke (who cares). But what is
>> diabolical
>> about here, and what will she DO if elected that is so awful and radical
>> and dangerous?
>
> ..........I get your point. I just don't trust her because she was 1/2 of
> the disaster that was Bilary. She's the epitome of a calculating
> opportunist.......which, come to think of it, may be exactly what we might
> need as Secretary of State, or Secretary of War.......but at the same
> time, there something very Talleyrand'esque about both Bilary/Hilbilly
> which, in the end, serves their personal interests at the expense of the
> national interest. Just look at how popular Bill Clinton is after the
> incredible damage (by omission and incompetence, if nothing else) he did
> to our national security by allowing the situation in Iraq to fester under
> the watchful eye of the UN. I think that the enduring "cult of Bill", says
> more about the idiocy of the American public than it does about the
> Clinton's though. The Clinton's, being smartn'all, recognize it and feed
> off it like catfish in a pond full of blood bait.
>
>>
>> Lastly, I've been telling my lefty academic friends for years that
>> they're
>> going to find religion at some point about states rights. From gay
>> marriage
>> to medical pot nearly every pet issue for lefties will get squashed by
>> federal
>> lawmakers and the federal judiciary. The lefties are going to have to
>> fight
>> for the right of (their own) states to legislate on those issues. They
>> scream
>> and yell and hem and haw and tell me I'm nuts but they have yet to come
>> up
>> with a compelling argument to counter mine. Conservatives (not the ones
>> like
>> me, the other kinds) are going to get their comeuppance probably after
>> the
>> next election for executive power. Seems like a great idea to decide the
>> president is above the law when you're guy is president, but the history
>> of this country is the gradual erosion of judicial and legislative power,
>> i.e. the executive branch rarely gives anything back. I suspect any
>> Democrat
>> who runs against any of the current Republicans will win, and then all of
>> that executive power wrenched away from Congress will be in the hands of
>> the other party. Law of unintended consequences, but I for one will have
>> a hearty belly laugh when the Rush Limbaugh set starts howling about some
>> abuse of executive power when a Democrat is the abuser.
>>
>> Anyway, enlighten me about Hillary.
>
> I think those who are howling about how Bush
> ignores/circumvents/reinterprets the law are going to be in for more of
> the
> same old same old, but it's going to be less about a national security
> agenda and more about a "Hilary" agenda, which will be determined by
> popularity polls and their uberleftist buddies in Hollyweed.
>
> ;o)
>
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>>news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry
>> to
>>>> rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch
>>>> into
>>
>>>> the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover from
>> it,
>>>> ever.
>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but God
>>
>>>> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>
>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>
>>>> AA
>>>>
>>>
>>>The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty. She's
>> as
>>>smart as she is diabolical.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91952 is a reply to message #91934] |
Thu, 25 October 2007 05:13 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kim, that's a very smart system.
Kim wrote:
>> How does your preferential system work?
>
> It's pretty basic, but effective for mine. Imagine you have 4 candidates.
> You get four boxes. I am paraphrasing here, but the paraphrase will be "conceptually
> accurate" if you get my drift:
>
> "You must place a number in every box. The numbers must start from one, and
> be sequential".
>
> That is basically it. So, for example, you can (and I have many times) give
> a 1 and 2 to a couple of people who are highly unlikely to win, and give
> 3 and 4 to the major parties. Assuming a major party victory, your vote ends
> up, in full strength, being counted as a vote for whoever you put 3rd, just
> as if you voted them as 1. As they count the votes, once it it established
> that a given candidate cannot possibly win, their preferences are distributed
> to other candidates, if you get my drift. At the end of the count, every
> single valid vote will be in one of two piles, being the victor, or the runner
> up.
>
> Additionally, if you read my legal paraphrase above, there is a little quirk
> in the system. It was found in a court of law that placing " 1 2 3 3
> " in your boxes counted as being sequential. As a result, for example, you
> can deliberately vote for one person, or another, but refuse to allow your
> vote to go to any of your non-preferences. As you can see, this quirk is
> an amazingly powerful little tool for democracy. Of course the "powers that
> be" didn't like that at all. Unfortunately for them, fortunately for us,
> changing the voting system requires a referendum, so the whole country would
> have to be informed of the issue and would then vote on it. The powers that
> be would have known that such an event would serve only to educate the public
> on how powerful this tool could be, and the vote would likely not go in their
> favour, so the "quirk" still exists. The bad new is that they actually made
> it illegal to publicise it. A couple of years back somebody was actually
> put in prison for a couple of years for informing the public of a perfectly
> legal way to vote.
>
> Go figure.
>
> But that's the system. Basically if you number each candidate sequentially
> in order of preference, until you run out of people you like, at which point
> you put the same number in each box. Assuming you haven't used the quirk
> to avoid your vote ending up with somebody you dislike, you will always end
> up with a full strength vote against one of the two most popular candidates.
>
> I actually think our system is really good. If the Australian public knew
> how to use it, and, for that matter, who to vote for for their own best interests,
> it would work pretty well methinks.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91954 is a reply to message #91922] |
Thu, 25 October 2007 05:42 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Not surprising. Even if presented with all the facts, a large percent of
the population are not actually bright enough to judge who is better
able to lead anyway, so looks is what they use.
That's precisely why democracy does not work.
A better system is a meritocracy, in which the person's past proven
production record determines on a clear analytical level who should be
promoted up the ladder. This would apply throughout the government, from
the bottom to the top.
Any job can be measured statistically if you know what the valuable
final product of the job is. Some jobs, like in sales or sports are
obvious. When I do marketing, my performance is measured by the number
of leads I generate (among other things). A band's performance can be
measured by the amount of applause they get - standing O makes double
points - that kind of thing. Teachers can be measured by test scores
(that's why the tests keep getting easier).
Even personal betterment can be measured. In Scientology, when people
receive counseling, they take 3 tests after every 12.5 hours of
counseling: the Oxford Capacity Analysis (a personality test), an IQ
test and an aptitude test. If their scores are not getting better there
is something wrong and gets corrected so they do get better, smarter and
more able.
Anything worthwhile has a product that can be measured.
So, with a system that measures actual valuable production instead of
looks, personality, promises, race, sex, etc, the most able, who are
most valuable to society are promoted up the ladder, and the less able
can be corrected, retrained, encouraged, etc. Everybody wins.
Had we a system like that, Bush would never have been elected, nor
Clinton, nor just about any of the failures we have endured of late.
Meritocracy works in sports, in business. Why not use it in government.
steve the artguy wrote:
> Puts this whole discussion in a somewhat meta-light:
>
> going with yer gut predicts actual election results
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID= CE4CD4FE-E7F2-99DF-350A53757475700D&ref=rss
>
> -steve
>
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersintheovaloffice.com> wrote:
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>> Two things, Don. First, non of this explains why the Clintons IN PARTICULAR
>>> generate the visceral hatred they do. Nobody seems to hate Russ Feingold
>>> or Barney Frank PERSONALLY. I explain the PERSONAL hatred of the Clintons
>>> the way I do for those reasons.
>> Neither had the power of the Clintons. Put Barney Frank in the
>> White House and watch what happens...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> As far as being a lying, cheating, showboating asshole, well he's a politician.
>>> That's what they are, that's what they do.
>> Not true. Not the case with Gerald Ford, nor Jimmy Carter,
>> in just recent memory.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If in a single generation we have a handful of actual decent people
>>> in national politics we're lucky, and those handful are almost universally
>>> demonized. For example, I think Ron Paul is tells us what he believes and
>>> would act on it. Jimmy Carter was the same way. I think Pat Buchanan is
>> another,
>>> and so is Ralph Nader.
>> Nader is a jerk and a self-promoter, but we agree on the point.
>>
>> The problem with Ron Paul is not that he wouldn't tell the
>> truth, but as with Carter, would his version of truth be wise?
>>
>>
>>> Second, and a point of order, OBL might have drawn some conclusions from
>>> Somalia but he specifically said that it was Lebanon where he turned on
>> the
>>> USA.
>> There is a direct quote from him basing his view about the USA
>> specifically on Somalia. Lebenon was certainly an issue as
>> well, but exactly how does that excuse Bill??
>>
>>
>>> Remember (or more likely don't, since it's problematic for your binary
>>> world) that OBL was a happy recipient of US military and logistical support
>>> when we were bankrolling the muj against the Soviets.
>>
>> Well, this mught be difficult for your postmodern delusions to
>> coexist with, but all of it adds up, and no one gets a pass....
>>
>> The hate for Reagan, from the left, was pretty virulent if you
>> remember.
>>
>>
>>> Was
>>> he, and the Democrats, unique in such cowardice? Not by a long shot.
>> Unique is not the issue, nor will it matter at all to history.
>> I am glad you agree about Clinton though.
>>
>> Now, the hard part. Who to elect?
>>
>> hmmmm...
>>
>> We always say that "big business" is the problem, or the
>> religious right, or the secular left, or the Soros crowd, but
>> really, suppose the country has simply gotten too big
>> to govern from a central point? Suppose the damn office of
>> the president is simply a rockstar contest with the winner
>> getting to hang with Bono? Suppose there is no one to
>> save us? then what?
>>
>> DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91991 is a reply to message #91954] |
Thu, 25 October 2007 17:09 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> Why not use it in government.
Frankly, because lobbying would die and the super rich will never have that.
AA
"Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:4720908d@linux...
> Not surprising. Even if presented with all the facts, a large percent of
> the population are not actually bright enough to judge who is better able
> to lead anyway, so looks is what they use.
>
> That's precisely why democracy does not work.
>
> A better system is a meritocracy, in which the person's past proven
> production record determines on a clear analytical level who should be
> promoted up the ladder. This would apply throughout the government, from
> the bottom to the top.
>
> Any job can be measured statistically if you know what the valuable final
> product of the job is. Some jobs, like in sales or sports are obvious.
> When I do marketing, my performance is measured by the number of leads I
> generate (among other things). A band's performance can be measured by the
> amount of applause they get - standing O makes double points - that kind
> of thing. Teachers can be measured by test scores (that's why the tests
> keep getting easier).
>
> Even personal betterment can be measured. In Scientology, when people
> receive counseling, they take 3 tests after every 12.5 hours of
> counseling: the Oxford Capacity Analysis (a personality test), an IQ test
> and an aptitude test. If their scores are not getting better there is
> something wrong and gets corrected so they do get better, smarter and more
> able.
>
> Anything worthwhile has a product that can be measured.
>
> So, with a system that measures actual valuable production instead of
> looks, personality, promises, race, sex, etc, the most able, who are most
> valuable to society are promoted up the ladder, and the less able can be
> corrected, retrained, encouraged, etc. Everybody wins.
>
> Had we a system like that, Bush would never have been elected, nor
> Clinton, nor just about any of the failures we have endured of late.
>
> Meritocracy works in sports, in business. Why not use it in government.
>
> steve the artguy wrote:
>> Puts this whole discussion in a somewhat meta-light:
>>
>> going with yer gut predicts actual election results
>>
>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID= CE4CD4FE-E7F2-99DF-350A53757475700D&ref=rss
>>
>> -steve
>>
>>
>> "DC" <dc@spammersintheovaloffice.com> wrote:
>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>> Two things, Don. First, non of this explains why the Clintons IN
>>>> PARTICULAR
>>>> generate the visceral hatred they do. Nobody seems to hate Russ
>>>> Feingold
>>>> or Barney Frank PERSONALLY. I explain the PERSONAL hatred of the
>>>> Clintons
>>>> the way I do for those reasons.
>>> Neither had the power of the Clintons. Put Barney Frank in the
>>> White House and watch what happens...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As far as being a lying, cheating, showboating asshole, well he's a
>>>> politician.
>>>> That's what they are, that's what they do.
>>> Not true. Not the case with Gerald Ford, nor Jimmy Carter,
>>> in just recent memory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If in a single generation we have a handful of actual decent people
>>>> in national politics we're lucky, and those handful are almost
>>>> universally
>>>> demonized. For example, I think Ron Paul is tells us what he believes
>>>> and
>>>> would act on it. Jimmy Carter was the same way. I think Pat Buchanan is
>>> another,
>>>> and so is Ralph Nader.
>>> Nader is a jerk and a self-promoter, but we agree on the point.
>>>
>>> The problem with Ron Paul is not that he wouldn't tell the
>>> truth, but as with Carter, would his version of truth be wise?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Second, and a point of order, OBL might have drawn some conclusions
>>>> from
>>>> Somalia but he specifically said that it was Lebanon where he turned on
>>> the
>>>> USA.
>>> There is a direct quote from him basing his view about the USA
>>> specifically on Somalia. Lebenon was certainly an issue as
>>> well, but exactly how does that excuse Bill??
>>>
>>>
>>>> Remember (or more likely don't, since it's problematic for your binary
>>>> world) that OBL was a happy recipient of US military and logistical
>>>> support
>>>> when we were bankrolling the muj against the Soviets.
>>>
>>> Well, this mught be difficult for your postmodern delusions to
>>> coexist with, but all of it adds up, and no one gets a pass....
>>>
>>> The hate for Reagan, from the left, was pretty virulent if you
>>> remember.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Was
>>>> he, and the Democrats, unique in such cowardice? Not by a long shot.
>>> Unique is not the issue, nor will it matter at all to history.
>>> I am glad you agree about Clinton though.
>>>
>>> Now, the hard part. Who to elect?
>>>
>>> hmmmm...
>>>
>>> We always say that "big business" is the problem, or the
>>> religious right, or the secular left, or the Soros crowd, but
>>> really, suppose the country has simply gotten too big
>>> to govern from a central point? Suppose the damn office of
>>> the president is simply a rockstar contest with the winner
>>> getting to hang with Bono? Suppose there is no one to save us? then
>>> what?
>>>
>>> DC
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #92011 is a reply to message #91993] |
Thu, 25 October 2007 23:46 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I actually agree with both of you here. ;o)
What Bill is expressing, I think, is an actual problem, but for the reason
Chuck has clearly stated, you can't run a "democracy" that way.
The harsh truth however is that it can be extremely difficult for even the
most intelligent to:
(*) Accurately guess what a leader will be like exactly once in power and:
(*) Even ignoring the last point, find a candidate in the list who fits the
bill for them
There is a third point which can make this problem worse of course, being
that the U.S. has no preferential voting and hence everybody wants to vote
for somebody who at least has a chance of winning in case their vote counts
for nothing, making the problem worse. Furthermore, in Australia we have
preferential voting, but people don't seem to appreciate the idea that you
can vote for anybody you like and your vote will still have full impact even
if you end up on your 3rd preference. You still get heard.
I think both of you have very real points though. They are both valid, in
a sense. Bill is being a little harsh perhaps in basically stating it's because
people are stupid, but I think he's trying to express frustration at the
fact that a lot of people really do vote for "the wrong person for them",
and in that, he's right. I think we've all done it, though some do it more
than others.
Cheers,
Kim.
"chuck duffy " <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>Bill,
>
>You clearly need medication. With that kind of logic America would end
up
>with an electoral college instead of a true democracy.
>
>Chuck
>Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>Not surprising. Even if presented with all the facts, a large percent of
>
>>the population are not actually bright enough to judge who is better
>>able to lead anyway, so looks is what they use.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #92016 is a reply to message #92011] |
Fri, 26 October 2007 00:42 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I actually agree with both of you here. ;o)
>
>What Bill is expressing, I think, is an actual problem, but
>for the reason Chuck has clearly stated, you can't run
> a "democracy" that way.
And one other reason... to run a Meritocracy to the extreme
extent of what Bill suggests, borders on Eugenics. Once you
discovered what you "could" do, you'd be fine-tuning fetuses,
ferpetes'sakes.
Bill, I love ya man, but Clearwater's a whole 'nother planet
from the rest of the world and i'm sure you of all people know
that!
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #92026 is a reply to message #92016] |
Fri, 26 October 2007 06:32 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil,
It seems like you're trying to paint what I wrote as a "crazy
Scientology" idea. That's kind of a cheap shot, IMHO. Why not address
what I wrote? Address the idea. Think it through and see if it doesn't
make sense.
If you are running a sales department, don't you reward the top
producers with the most pay, or do you reward the guy with the best hair
or the woman with the finest breasts?
If you are coaching a sports team, don't you play the best athletes the
most and pay them most?
In a meritocracy, everybody gets the same chance to succeed, but the
fact is not everybody can do as well as everybody else. Rewarding people
with seniority, popularity or "pull" is a sure way to make your group fail.
I wouldn't touch genetics unless I were only trying for big and strong
or good looking, or some physical thing that is actually a body trait.
Intelligence comes from the spiritual being, coupled with education and
knowledge, and one's mental abilities are one's own, not from brains.
Neil, what makes you talented at music? You do! Not your brain.
Look at any technology aimed at improving people's behavior or mental
faculties by addressing the brain or the physical aspects of man. They
don't work. You have such things as: the wide range of "medications"
that only make people stupider or apathetic toward life; electric shock
(still practiced widely); lobotomy.
These things universally make man worse, because they are addressing the
wrong source. Historically when the spiritual aspects of man are
addressed, as in religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Scientology, etc),
people get better and societies improve.
Neil wrote:
> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I actually agree with both of you here. ;o)
>>
>> What Bill is expressing, I think, is an actual problem, but
>> for the reason Chuck has clearly stated, you can't run
>> a "democracy" that way.
>
> And one other reason... to run a Meritocracy to the extreme
> extent of what Bill suggests, borders on Eugenics. Once you
> discovered what you "could" do, you'd be fine-tuning fetuses,
> ferpetes'sakes.
>
> Bill, I love ya man, but Clearwater's a whole 'nother planet
> from the rest of the world and i'm sure you of all people know
> that!
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #92042 is a reply to message #92027] |
Fri, 26 October 2007 15:07 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chuck-
of course, Bill can speak for himself, but the fact that he answered your
joke with a joke tells me he gets your joke.
-steve
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>Bill,
>
>I know, I was making a very small joke, probably in poor taste :-) Hope
you
>weren't offended.
>
>Chuck
>
>Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>Medication? Never touch the stuff. As I like to say, "You'd have to be
>>crazy to go to a psychiatrist!"
>>
>>chuck duffy wrote:
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>> You clearly need medication. With that kind of logic America would end
>up
>>> with an electoral college instead of a true democracy.
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>>> Not surprising. Even if presented with all the facts, a large percent
>of
>>>
>>>> the population are not actually bright enough to judge who is better
>
>>>> able to lead anyway, so looks is what they use.
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #92046 is a reply to message #92026] |
Fri, 26 October 2007 19:06 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>Neil,
>
>It seems like you're trying to paint what I wrote as a "crazy
>Scientology" idea. That's kind of a cheap shot, IMHO.
Ok , sorry if you feel that way - it wasn't intended as a cheap
shot - you know I've never given you grief about your
Scientology before, even when you've alluded to some it's
beliefs... I only brought it up because you came right out
& "said the word". Here's the thing... I just think that you
live in a pretty insular world down there - I mean, you've got
more Scientologists per square inch in Clearwater than if John
Travolta & Tom Cruise threw a party together in an elevator &
all their friends showed up - so you're views as to what really
should or could "work" are tempered by being constantly
surrounded by a couple hundred thousand people who all share
the same views. IOW, you get validation on damn near everything
you think or say down there!
So, what I meant be getting into eugenics is that you can't just
fine-tune politicians to be a certain way, because the reason
they get into that field is due to certain predispositions
they have to begin with (lust for power, narcissism, etc), that
make it impossible for them to perform for the betterment of
others, it's really all about what's best for them - I'm really
now quite convinced of this - so you'd ultimately have to start
literally breeding people to be better politicians if you
wanted to truly run that system as a meritocracy.
BTW, meritocracies don't really exist... let's take your sports
analogy... you think Barry Bonds got signed again this past year
because he'd help the Giants win? No, he got signed because
they knew he'd put butts in seats as he pursued his
narcissistic chase for the hoem run record - did he EVER lay
down an easy sacrifice bunt when that might have been the best
way to make to help the team win? No, he swung for the fences
every time. Granted, sometimes that DID help the team win, but
other times maybe a sacrifice bunt woulda been the ticket.
Sales deartments? you think ALL of those are meritocracies?
Geez, i've seen more that are crony-ocracies; where one guy
sucks up to the boss so he gets more accounts thrown at him,
gets all the new leads, etc. C'mon - in a perfect world
meritocracies would exist, but they really hardly ever do right
now, so why do you think that the most corrupt & self-serving
group of all - politicians - wouldn't find a way to corrupt
that, as well, were it implemented?
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #92049 is a reply to message #92042] |
Fri, 26 October 2007 20:50 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
All cool, amigo.
steve the artguy wrote:
> Chuck-
>
> of course, Bill can speak for himself, but the fact that he answered your
> joke with a joke tells me he gets your joke.
>
> -steve
>
>
> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> I know, I was making a very small joke, probably in poor taste :-) Hope
> you
>> weren't offended.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>> Medication? Never touch the stuff. As I like to say, "You'd have to be
>
>>> crazy to go to a psychiatrist!"
>>>
>>> chuck duffy wrote:
>>>> Bill,
>>>>
>>>> You clearly need medication. With that kind of logic America would end
>> up
>>>> with an electoral college instead of a true democracy.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>>>> Not surprising. Even if presented with all the facts, a large percent
>> of
>>>>> the population are not actually bright enough to judge who is better
>>>>> able to lead anyway, so looks is what they use.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #92052 is a reply to message #92046] |
Fri, 26 October 2007 21:21 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil wrote:
> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>> Neil,
>>
>> It seems like you're trying to paint what I wrote as a "crazy
>> Scientology" idea. That's kind of a cheap shot, IMHO.
>
> Ok , sorry if you feel that way - it wasn't intended as a cheap
> shot - you know I've never given you grief about your
> Scientology before, even when you've alluded to some it's
> beliefs... I only brought it up because you came right out
> & "said the word". Here's the thing... I just think that you
> live in a pretty insular world down there - I mean, you've got
> more Scientologists per square inch in Clearwater than if John
> Travolta & Tom Cruise threw a party together in an elevator &
> all their friends showed up - so you're views as to what really
> should or could "work" are tempered by being constantly
> surrounded by a couple hundred thousand people who all share
> the same views. IOW, you get validation on damn near everything
> you think or say down there!
Neil, you gotta be kidding. We are about .03% of the population of
Clearwater, seriously. You want to know how insular my world is? I spent
the last year as COO of a telemarketing call center. You ever been in a
call center? Put it this way: if we ran drug testing or checked criminal
records, there would be NO ONE left in the place. My 2 top sales guys
were actual crack addicts, until one of them got arrested right in our
lobby, for check forgery. I managed them the same way i would manage
anyone else - show me the numbers and you get the prizes; fuck up and
you're fired. If rewarding people for production works with crack heads,
don't you think it could work with government employees?
Listen man, I've been a professional musician my whole life. How insular
can my life be?
>
> So, what I meant be getting into eugenics is that you can't just
> fine-tune politicians to be a certain way, because the reason
> they get into that field is due to certain predispositions
> they have to begin with (lust for power, narcissism, etc), that
> make it impossible for them to perform for the betterment of
> others, it's really all about what's best for them - I'm really
> now quite convinced of this - so you'd ultimately have to start
> literally breeding people to be better politicians if you
> wanted to truly run that system as a meritocracy.
First we need to define the purpose of government, then name its
valuable products, than put skilled managers in charge of coordinating
the communication lines, resources and workers to efficiently produce
those products. It does not require "politicians" it requires managers,
executives.
>
> BTW, meritocracies don't really exist... let's take your sports
> analogy... you think Barry Bonds got signed again this past year
> because he'd help the Giants win? No, he got signed because
> they knew he'd put butts in seats as he pursued his
> narcissistic chase for the hoem run record - did he EVER lay
> down an easy sacrifice bunt when that might have been the best
> way to make to help the team win? No, he swung for the fences
> every time. Granted, sometimes that DID help the team win, but
> other times maybe a sacrifice bunt woulda been the ticket.
> Sales deartments? you think ALL of those are meritocracies?
> Geez, i've seen more that are crony-ocracies; where one guy
> sucks up to the boss so he gets more accounts thrown at him,
> gets all the new leads, etc. C'mon - in a perfect world
> meritocracies would exist, but they really hardly ever do right
> now, so why do you think that the most corrupt & self-serving
> group of all - politicians - wouldn't find a way to corrupt
> that, as well, were it implemented?
Your example is a perfect one. The professional sports business is about
making money (and having fun - let's be real). If Barry Bonds makes the
team more money, then he is just as valuable to the team as a great
salesman is to a sales organization.
If you know what the product of a group is you can judge the production
stats of the members. It's only when you don't understand what the
product of a group is that you can't imagine how it can be run better as
a meritocracy.
>
>
> Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #92078 is a reply to message #92052] |
Sat, 27 October 2007 14:55 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>If you know what the product of a group is you can judge the production
>stats of the members. It's only when you don't understand what the
>product of a group is that you can't imagine how it can be run better as
>a meritocracy.
Good point - so how do we measure the product of that
particular group (politicians)? I just think it would be too
complicated to measure, because EVERYBODY's their own little
special-interest group.
Neil
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Jun 03 21:28:13 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02361 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
