Re: A simple proposition to fix democracy in U.S.

The real problem is choice. Democracy should not be a simple right left
thing with just 2 partys. In Ireland (south) system, in an election a voter
has the choice between say 3 republicans, 3 democrats, a green, and one or
2 from other partys.  And we dont put x beside a particular candidate. We
are educated and can count so we put 1 beside the favorite, 2 beside the
second favorite and so forth.  Using a relatively simple mathematical
system, we count out the votes and when a condidate reaches his quota, he
or she is deemed elected. we elect 3 4 or 5 from an electoratal area.
All counting is by hand (Counting by machine is never allowed) and officials
from the partys and the public are allowed and encouraged to watch.
Competition between and within partys for the spoils keeps the partys
honest. You cannot impose a guy that the locals hate in this system. They
will just vote for the other guy. This system gives great statistical
information to the partys so they can change their polocys to diliver what
the electorate want. It is a true free market system!
Not like the American system where the 2 leading brands are locked in an
unbreaking (and unbreakable) monoploy.
Brian White
Edward Glamkowski wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Aronesty) wrote in message
>> > Democracy is dead.  All the vote rigging by repugs in the 2000 and
>> 
>> Democracy begins to die the day we stop believing in it.  There were
>> problems with the original system.  We can fix them.
>> 
>> We know what the problems are:
>> 
>> - Voter apathy, and low turnout can be repaired by declaring election
>> day a national holiday
>> - Secure, auditable, verifiable election machines can be built:
>> http://securevote.documentroot.com/
>> 
>> Statewide independent audits by the exit polls, the ACLU, and other
>> organizations have a margin of error of only 3%.  That's abount how
>> much wiggle room you have when you rig an election. There are hundreds
>> of groups who will be conducting independent audits during this next
>> election.
>> 
>> Bush can gerrymander and use Diebold boxes to shift botes from one
>> district to another and gain about 4%.  Plus the margin of error of
>> 4%.  But they cannot rig statewide totals.
>> 
>> Thus we need to beat Bush by 7%
>> 
>> If only 14% of the whining "I hate bush but I can't do anything about
>> it" armchair pundits and political idiots got up and voted against
>> Bush... then we'd have him beaten easily.
>> 
>> To do that we need a passionate nominee (Howard Dean fits the bill
>> nicely), and we need cynics like you to realize how much damage you
>> are doing.
>> 
>> Do you realize that you are killing your country.
>> 
>> Do you know that with every useless negative word you spew online
>> potentially hundreds of voters, activists and reformers decide to sit
>> home and watch TV instead of get involved?
>> 
>> Please, please be present to the impact your words have on this
>> country.
>> 
>> You are a powerful person.  Your words matter.  Ever word you say
>> actually creates your reality, and impacts the realities of others.
>> 
>> Please email me.  I'll give you my phone number so we can talk about
>> this.
>> 
>> If you do, I promise that together, Americans will rise up in 2004,
>> and we will defeat tyranny, we will take back this country and we will
>> make our dreams of freedom a reality.
> 
> 
> Actually, I suspect the Bush-hating leftists already do a
> good job getting to the voting booths.  However, there's a
> huge latent conservative population out there that doesn't
> vote (gotta go play golf or go to the beauty salon!).
> That proverbial "silent majority".
> It really does exist.
> 1994.
> 2002.
> 
> Getting the "great unwashed" galvanized to vote generally favors
> the republicans.  It may be more democratic that way, but I doubt
> you'll be happy with the results.
> 
> Look at the loonies who supported Judge Roy Moore in Alabama.
> They don't care about freedom or liberty or any of the good
> things that you and I love about this country.  If they could
> impose a fundamentalist christian government at the expense of
> the constitution, they'd do it.