Libertarianism for me, in short a government that exists only to to provide protection to citizens and to enforce and validate any agreements between them.

I like Anarchism, the problem with it is that there is nothing preventing a de facto government to take place because of it, maybe in the future, after we give Libertarianism a go [smile].

Libertarian Geonomic.

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
Libertarianism for me, in short a government that exists only to to provide protection to citizens and to enforce and validate any agreements between them.

I like Anarchism, the problem with it is that there is nothing preventing a de facto government to take place because of it, maybe in the future, after we give Libertarianism a go [smile].

I like you /lick.

I vote Rational Democracy... whatever the hell that is...

Personally I'd like to see "Parties" removed from the democratic system.


As a side note, I really appreciate living in a "modern democracy" compared to all the current alternatives. However, I don't actually vote, because I find it kind of offensive that democracy/"rule by the people" actually means "you get to choose between two ever-so-slightly-different options once every X years". The pinnacle of this is that elections are often turned into referendums on a single issue!
Also, if you ever watch our Senate or Representatives have a "debate", you will want to kill yourself -- it's that depressing.
Both sides are childish, detached from reality... Hypocrisy is everywhere, ad hominem is the default offence and defence... The concept of political ideals is derided at the same time as being fervently pursued!

It is absolutely chaotic... and yet... it works, in a way.

So what do we do? I for one hope that some dreamer like ManaStone eventually thinks up a form of democracy that is based on logic instead of emotion and overt fallacy...

[Edited by - Hodgman on July 5, 2009 9:53:51 PM]

I have a few specific questions for you guys:

1) Would you prefer a parliament or presidential system?

2) Do you prefer electing a single candidate from a district to the legislature or do you prefer proportional representation?

3) For a single candidate election, do you prefer Instant Runoff Voting or the Condorcet method?

I’m a little divided over this. For a while, I thought that the Condorcet Method might be interesting, but now I’m having second thoughts. The part that bugs me about Condorcet is that it gives a huge advantage to playing to the center. For example, let’s say we have the following initial votes:

1) Left wing candidate: 45%
2) Right wing candidate 43%
3) Centrist Candidate 12%

The Centrist is probably going to win even though he initially only got 12% of the vote. I’m not entirely sure that is fair. Should it count for something that the first 2 candidates got much more fervent support?

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
Personally I'd like to see "Parties" removed from the democratic system.

So would I. That is one of the very few things that I disagree with Lessbread on. I’ve got an idea on how this can work. It is a bit elaborate so I’ll post that later.

Quote: Original post by ManaStone

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
Personally I'd like to see "Parties" removed from the democratic system.

So would I. That is one of the very few things that I disagree with Lessbread on. I’ve got an idea on how this can work. It is a bit elaborate so I’ll post that later.

I suspect that it's impossible, though, really. How are you going to prevent people from forming informal coalitions that solidify over time and eventually turn into "parties" again?

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
I suspect that it's impossible, though, really. How are you going to prevent people from forming informal coalitions that solidify over time and eventually turn into "parties" again?

Parties can be dangerous because a candidate can be forced to "follow the party line" or risk their career.
Individuals don't face this pressure, as our political decisions can be anonymous. If the party (formal or informal) doesn't know how their members are voting, then they lose their control.
...however this also hides a representatives actions from their constituents, unless you don't have autonomous representatives.

Seeing that we demand anonymity for our own votes, it follows that for our representatives to be independent they require it as well.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
As a side note, I really appreciate living in a "modern democracy" compared to all the current alternatives. However, I don't actually vote, because I find it kind of offensive that democracy/"rule by the people" actually means "you get to choose between two ever-so-slightly-different options once every X years".

Australia's got Instant Run Off Voting though, so it's perfectly reasonable to vote for third parties and independents; it's not going to "throw your vote away". In fact, there's every good reason to do so - if your electorate votes in an independent, and the parliament just happens to be hung enough that your independent member's vote becomes all-important, then your electorate just hit the jackpot.

However I agree that it does tend to turn out that way in practice. Although we do get more minor parties in the Senate.

BTW, since voting is compulsory here, are you not voting by turning up and casting invalid ballots, are you making a stand by paying fines, or are you slipping through the net by not being enroled? (I'm just curious.)

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
I vote Rational Democracy... whatever the hell that is...

That's where power is ratioed between the House of Numerators and the House of Denominators. [wink]

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
Personally I'd like to see "Parties" removed from the democratic system.

I used to want that too, but I don't know if it will make a big difference. The real problem is all the factionalism that goes on behind the scenes, and that's within the parties. That's the reason why absolute dills get given ministerial positions, because they've got to curry favour with all the different blocks. Getting rid of parties won't stop that, as you'll still have all these cliches jostling for power.

I've wondered if it would help diffuse the party politics if we had stronger local representives on a smaller scale. Say a micro-community gets a part-time rep for every hundred or two people who canvases local opinion and presents them at a local meeting. Then the chairs of those meetings meet with other chairs in a larger community and meet up with a local member of parliament, and report on their actions back through the system.

Quote: The pinnacle of this is that elections are often turned into referendums on a single issue!
Also, if you ever watch our Senate or Representatives have a "debate", you will want to kill yourself -- it's that depressing.
Both sides are childish, detached from reality... Hypocrisy is everywhere, ad hominem is the default offence and defence... The concept of political ideals is derided at the same time as being fervently pursued!

It is absolutely chaotic... and yet... it works, in a way.

That's the Westminister system for you. At the very least it means we have to have a Prime Minister who can think on his or her feet. It does however mean we get a Parliamentary Question Time that's best regarded as some kind of satirical performance art than actual governence.

My problem with democracy is twofold:

1) it all comes down to a sympathy contest and to which candidate is more charming rather than political ideals and

2) it really isn't popular government as much as it is majority rule, you could say the losing minority is then somewhat oppressed, and then if you have for example 33% absenteeism during an election, 33% minority and 34% majority, then it really isn't a majority, is it?.

Don't ask me whats my alternative, I haven't quite figured that yet [lol].

I vote, otherwise I won't feel entitled to complain.