Summations Only

Rahvin writes: It's gotten to the point that few actually think about why they support this issue or that - if the issue is supported by their "team," then they support it.

In the UK, we have a history of people voting according to their family's preferences.
Many times British people have said something like:
"I vote Labour. I've always voted Labour. My father voted labour and so did his father. This is a Labour voting family." (Labour is the main left wing party)
It is as if they think the political party has not changed in 60+ years and so there is no reason to adjust their vote.
Attitudes like that are wrong and undermine confidence in democracy.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Maybe there's something I'm missing about your examples but they all appear to be examples of two-coalition governments. I'm not saying the coalitions don't ever change but there only ever seems to be two of them.

You don't have an example, for instance, of a center-left-plus-center-right coalition defending itself against a major rightwing coalition plus a major leftwing coalition (that aren't themselves allied.) The coalitions seem to be right vs left, and the winner is whoever grabs the centrists.

Rahvin writes: It's gotten to the point that few actually think about why they support this issue or that - if the issue is supported by their "team," then they support it.

I am sure that is true for many people. But I also think it is true that many people vote based on just one issue. For example, abortion.

As you probably read from me previously (and repeatedly), slashing of the military budget and adopting universal health care are my main issues. Which usually doesn't leave me with any election choices except fringe candidates.

I think education may be the only possible answer, but I am afraid too many americans are willfully ignorant. If people choose to vote against their best economic/health interests, what can be done?

Again, it's really fun making up examples, isn't it.

It is good to compare a voting system against the kind of results you would like it to deliver. Either you're happy with it electing the guy who was the first choice of 30% against the gal who was the first choice of 70% or you're not. If you're not, it's time to think again, more carefully this time.

But the idea of developing a consensus is finding what everyone can live with. The ideal system would include an absolute veto vote as well, where if anyone said I simply cannot live with candidate X being elected, then that person could not be elected.

An absolute veto? If anyone said that? One person?

Would anyone get elected under that system?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

LITTLE RED HEN
(Courtesy of BigSoph on another website)

She asked 99% of her neighbors, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
'Not I,' said the cow.
'Not I,' said the duck.
'Not I,' said the pig.
'Not I,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.
'Not I,' said the duck..
'Out of my classification,' said the pig.
'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread.
'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.
'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.
'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.
'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'

'Excess profits!' cried the Screeching cow.
'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck.
'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose.
The pig just grunted in disdain.

And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the Great Leader came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.'

'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.

'Exactly,' said Great Leader. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labour with those who are lazy and idle or who are engaged in community activities.'

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.

Then the bread ran out.

That's a funny story, Coyote, but here's the real story of the United States:

You can still tell your story about a class of moochers living off the wealth of others by diverting the results of their productivity. You just need to understand that, in the United States, the idle moochers are on Wall Street and the long-suffering producers are occupying the park.

She asked 99% of her neighbors, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
'I,' said the cow.
'I,' said the duck.
'I,' said the pig.
'I,' said the goose.
'I shall pay you minimum wage,' said the little red hen, and so she did. The cow and the duck and the pig and the goose planted the wheat, and the wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.
'I,' said the cow.
'I,' said the duck.
'I,' said the pig.
'I,' said the goose.
'Actually, there's been an economic downturn, so I'll have to lay off the goose' said the little red hen, and so she did. And the cow and the duck and the pig reaped the wheat.

At last it came time to bake the bread.
'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.
'I,' said the cow.
'I,' said the duck.
'I,' said the pig.
'I would like my job back' said the goose.
'I mismanaged the farm, so the pig's going to have to go too' said the little red hen.

So the cow and the duck baked five loaves and the little red hen held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves. We live in a capitalist society, which means that hard work gets rewarded, and I did the hard work of getting you to make the bread and the hard, hard work of sacking you when you became uneconomic. No-one regretted that more than I.'

'I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Gee, somebody read "Atlas Shrugged" and thought it had something to do with reality...

Yes, eventually someone would get elected.

Gee, somebody read "Atlas Shrugged" and thought it had something to do with reality...

The really weird thing is that Coyote is in fact an archaeologist. Think about this. While I was earning my way working nightshifts and making bread, I mean actual literal non-metaphorical bread, that stuff that one makes out of flour, water, yeast, and salt --- he was taking taxpayers' money to find out what Babylonians thought about bread during the Late Amorite Period in Mesopotamia. Or something, he's never actually told us what his vital researches have uncovered.

If he should ever feel the need to "go Galt", will anyone notice?

And if he wants to threaten me with not getting a loaf, then which one of us has actually made bread?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, eventually someone would get elected.

One person that no-one disagrees with? Where will you find him?

'Actually, there's been an economic downturn, so I'll have to lay off the goose' said the little red hen, and so she did. And the cow and the duck and the pig reaped the wheat.

Or alternatively: 'The horse invented a harvesting machine which increases productivity meaning either you all get to do less hard labour, or you get to the same amount of hard work while I lay off the goose meaning I don't have to share as much of MY bread around.'

No, read what I write; one person that everyone can live with. Consensus does not require that the person be a favorite, or even desirable, simply that it is someone who everyone can live with.

Or alternatively: 'The horse invented a harvesting machine which increases productivity meaning either you all get to do less hard labour, or you get to the same amount of hard work while I lay off the goose meaning I don't have to share as much of MY bread around.'

And since the horse was employed by the hen when he made the invention, the hen pays the horse his normal salary but takes all of the revenue from selling the new harvesting machine herself as if she created it. Because the hen is totally the actual innovator, not the horse.

And dont forget increased production with less labor caused the farmer to begin to wonder how much of a labor force did he really need to maintain this profit model. If he could enlist some cheap labor from a neighboring farm he could further limit his cost of doing business locally at the same time expand his own bread stockpiles.