Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
The Negative Vote
    #8897615 -

The left and right largely represent the choice of freedom of money and freedom of choice, respectively.

Since freedom of money is inherently a single choice and freedom of choice is inherently multiple, it is easy to see how money has been unfairly advantaged in "the Great Democracies".

Being able to vote AGAINST a party instead of FOR a party would balance this unreasonability, and would also likely increase voter turnout in America. In the case of negative turnouts all around, the party with the lowest magnitude of negative votes would win.

Does this system sound reasonable?

Why (not)?


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8897672 -

I don't know , I'm not sure how that would work out with several parties...it would make the ad campaign pretty aggressive during election time tough!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: TypicalTripper]
    #8897966 -

It would certainly allow antithesis arguments to be more freely made in a campaign.

Would that necessarily make it more aggressive?

Or simply add incentive to be more open?

A party should still be capped for campaign expenditure;
they would have to choose between anti-party/pro-party marketing.

I think the number of parties would quickly climb in the states, perhaps not so much in Canada where there are already a good number.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8898561 -

So rather than the most liked party winning, we now have the least disliked party win?

Kind of a pessimistic spin on it, don't ya think.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: deCypher]
    #8898607 -

Not pessimistic, just realistic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: Sleepwalker]
    #8900142 -

Yes, with the stakes so high it is time to get realistic, (not) pessimistic.

The death rate is about to soar as the oil runs out.

We should have more explicit control of our nations in this time.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8901104 -

ExplosiveMango said:
The left and right largely represent the choice of freedom of money and freedom of choice, respectively.


:confused:......errrrrr no, they don't. They represent 2 different political ideology's.


Quote:
Since freedom of money is inherently a single choice and freedom of choice is inherently multiple, it is easy to see how money has been unfairly advantaged in "the Great Democracies".



We are not a democracy.

I'm really not sure what you mean by "freedom of money, and freedom of choice". "Freedom of Choice" pretty much covers everything, its your freedom to make choices, and that pertains to everything.

Quote:
Being able to vote AGAINST a party instead of FOR a party would balance this unreasonability, and would also likely increase voter turnout in America. In the case of negative turnouts all around, the party with the lowest magnitude of negative votes would win.

Does this system sound reasonable?

Why (not)?


No, it does not sound reasonable......honestly it sounds just plain absurd. It wouldn't change anything at all aside from disenfranchising voters further. Not to even mention the billions of dollars it would take to enact something like this.


--------------------
The Prophecy!

Learn To Code

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: blewmeanie]
    #8903903 -

If you want to pretend that the right wing isn't there to uphold wealth, and that the left with isn't there to enact change;

that's your (business). Vote for McCain if (you must).


The disgustingly low voter turnout would turn around completely if voters could take direct action against the powers that constantly disappoint them. If peripheral political ideologies were allowed to enter;
your country might stand a cat's chance in hell at getting away from the event horizon you hurtle towards.

You act like you have nothing to lose but your convenience;
remember your defeatist attitude when the crisis mounts unabated and you are forced to witness the death of millions.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8903915 -

If you're having trouble grasping the mechanics of the negative vote, it would allow the public to recognize the powers that had been long held in place by the inertia of money and to manually dis-empower them in favor of newer choices.

Why you want to keep the old choices beats me;
do you like the drug war? Do you like the war on terror? Unaccountable government?


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8903951 -

If by the left you mean Democrats, it is absurd to argue that they will end the Drug War.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: Redstorm]
    #8904261 -

What I'm saying is that with a negative vote, both of the existing parties could easily be put out of the running in favor of new choices.

The voter turnout is well under 20%, am I wrong?

Twice this number would guarantee the potential for the existing parties to have their chances nullified.

Much more would be at stake. Real change would finally be a possibility.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8904529 -

worst idea ever.

so many more viable alternatives to the current election system which would be FAR better than this.

the fundemental flaw in this is that if no one cares enough to vote for(against) a canididate, they win. so the person who becaomes our next president is not the person the people see most fit, but rather the one they know the least about.

and you REALLY think a negaive vote is going to positively influence voter turnout? please do tell how the fuck you came up with that one?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8904985 -

In Australia voting is mandatory, but the ballot includes the option of "none of the above."


For the record, in case you're alluding to the upcoming american election (who talks about canadian politics? not even canadians), discounting Nader, there are no contenders on the left.

Case in point:



I'm down with the negative vote, if solely for the comedic value of a majority "no"-government :yesnod: (not that the ballot fixers would ever let that tasty bit of subversion reach the public.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #8905132 -

The dems and the republicans are both the same corporate party. i dont understand why people think there is going to be change. The govt just took over freddie mac and fanny may, and dems promise to lower taxes? who the fuck do the american people think is paying for those companies? we are.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: hamandcheese]
    #8905424 -

hamandcheese said:
the fundemental flaw in this is that if no one cares enough to vote for(against) a canididate, they win. so the person who becaomes our next president is not the person the people see most fit, but rather the one they know the least about.


Good call. This is the biggest flaw with the proposal, and it's a real deal-breaker.

If you want to improve the US voting system, bring in preference voting. Most other developed countries have it, And as a result we have viable third parties.

And if you want to improve voter turnout, make voting compulsory. Plenty of places have that too. It produces more centrist politicians and reduces the power of organised religions.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8905497 -

Quote:
The voter turnout is well under 20%, am I wrong?


Yes, the lowest voter turnout has gotten in the past 50 years is 36.4%.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Negative Vote [Re: hamandcheese]
    #8905503 -

Moving on...

The responses remind me of the paper;
Tragedy at the Commons

Superiority is easier to choose than effort, especially in America.


Edit: but it doesn't really matter anyway, it won't be enacted.

Go status quo!


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Edited by ExplosiveMango (09/10/08 05:38 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Democracy =! Slavery
( 1 2 all )		 Octavius 3,762 31 04/08/06 09:10 PM
by blaze2
* ? S&P Mod Spot Opening - Now Taking Nominations ?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 geokillsA 8,417 128 02/23/05 10:19 PM
by BanJankri
* Working with Negativity egghead1 638 4 03/27/05 09:56 AM
by egghead1
* Positive/Negative Forces Veritas 2,243 19 08/03/05 06:40 AM
by iambobby
* Whats so FUNNY about peace, love and understanding? seriousnesss and negativity. gettinjiggywithit 887 6 01/22/05 03:56 PM
by incubaby_421
* Don't be negative, JERK!!!
( 1 2 3 all )		 Mixomatosis 3,061 43 01/30/10 07:46 PM
by deCypher
* Why is negativity so much easier? (warning: long)
( 1 2 all )		 Renegade8 1,876 22 02/04/04 09:14 PM
by Sole_Worthy
* Negative on Spirituality?
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 2,460 21 08/16/05 01:55 PM
by budsicle

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,206 topic views. 0 members, 106 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.