In any case, I don't really see the need to rank candidates in order of preference, one vote should be sufficient which could either be cast for a specific candidate or for a party.

Our inability to rank candidates in order of preference is one of the primary (lol) reasons why we have an unbreakable bipartisan lock on our government. "Well, the Green candidate is never going to win, so I'll vote for the Democrat even though I hate him!"

Out of topic: can an American please tell me how much GDP does the US spend on defense and health care.....in percentage?

 

Thank you

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can't give you percentage, but I can give you rank:

 

#1: Health and Human services

#2: Defense

#3: Treasury Dept

 

http://www.federalbudget.com/

 

Now was there something you were getting at or were you just curious?

 

(Hint: remember, I love it when you make it easy!)

Edited November 27, 200619 yr by kumquatq3

I dig your avatar.

I dunno, I don't really think uninformed, stupid people should have the same vote as informed and intelligent people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right to vote for "citizens" only ... "

Only a superior citizen should be allowed to vote.

And who exactly are the superior citizens?

Only a superior citizen should be allowed to vote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if it leaves you out of vote?

[The USA's] current system is a plurality voting system.  I favor IRV or Condorcet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_voting

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

Majoritarianism and consensus

 

The intention of IRV is that the winning candidate will have the support of an absolute majority of voters, or at the very least an overall majority. It is often intended as an improvement on the 'First Past the Post' (plurality) voting system. Under 'First Past the Post' the candidate with most votes (a plurality) wins, even if they do not have an overall majority (more than half) of votes. IRV tries to overcome this problem by eliminating candidates one at a time, until one has an overall majority.

 

[1]However, some critics argue that the majority obtained by the winner of an IRV election is an artificial one. This is because there may be a candidate that voters prefer to the winner of an IRV election, but who has been eliminated because of garnering a small number of higher preferences. Advocates of this view argue that a candidate can only claim to have majority support if they are the 'Condorcet winner'

Can't give you percentage, but I can give you rank:

 

#1: Health and Human services

#2: Defense

#3: Treasury Dept

 

http://www.federalbudget.com/

 

Now was there something you were getting at or were you just curious?

 

(Hint: remember, I love it when you make it easy!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thanks kumaq...I was just wondering the exact amount of GDP percentage on those two issues and how the US spends a lot of money on health care and it still sucks big time, that's all.

And who exactly are the superior citizens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

'Tis a sekrit.

Okay, maybe some of the people that actually contribute to the society.

 

 

And who doesn't contribute to society? Just by, say, buying chewing gum you're helping the economy grow.

Okay, maybe some of the people that actually contribute to the society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And who doesn't contribute to society? Just by, say, buying chewing gum you're helping the economy grow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gum chewers can vote, too! Just their votes are gum-chewing sized, compared to others who contribute in larger ways ...

How do you quantify contribution to society?

most professional societies have a ranking vote. i think the IEEE gives each member 5 votes (can't recall as i never vote in their elections) with a ranking from 1 to 5. highest point total wins. this would be difficult to implement on a large scale election (think the hanging chad issue was a problem?).

 

taks

Scandinavia ftw? )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed

 

Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Finland all at the top ^_^

Indeed, indeed.

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

[some Swedish strunt]Fast... det

Edited November 27, 200619 yr by Accept

i think this article's measure of "democracy" should be labelled more of a measure of "freedom." civil liberties do not a democracy make, but they do imply a measure of freedom. of course, i still do not understand how an oppressive taxing scheme is not considered an infringement on civil liberties while tapping phone lines of suspected terrorists is... personally, BOTH should be given weight (though not necessarily equally) as the former really does amount to robbing peter to pay for paul.

 

also, most "democracies" in the world are not actually democracies, but republics. true democracy is indeed as bad as any communist regime every wished to be.

 

taks

Edited November 27, 200619 yr by taks

How do you quantify contribution to society?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally. ^_^

how the US spends a lot of money on health care and it still sucks big time, that's all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I've covered more territory around the world than most people on these boards I imagine and I wouldn't want to be treated in any other country. Free Healthcare doesn't necessarily mean good.

snip

 

HOW DARE YOU SIR!

 

I am unquestionably the biggest Kate Beckinsale fan on these boards! We need a Thunderdome or something...

Edited November 28, 200619 yr by kumquatq3

well get a shot of yourself kissing kate and use it as your siggy there kum... GAWD are you dense!?

 

I really think that if america were left to bush and people like him we'd move from a "Democracy" to a benevolent totalitarian government pretty quick.

  of course, i still do not understand how an oppressive taxing scheme is not considered an infringement on civil liberties while tapping phone lines of suspected terrorists is...  personally, BOTH should be given weight (though not necessarily equally) as the former really does amount to robbing peter to pay for paul.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, uh, that wasn't joke?

well get a shot of yourself kissing kate and use it as your siggy there kum... GAWD are you dense!?

 

I really think that if america were left to bush and people like him we'd move from a "Democracy" to a benevolent totalitarian government pretty quick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canada would look very promising.

So, uh, that wasn't joke?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, no.

 

taks

I really think that if america were left to bush and people like him we'd move from a "Democracy" to a benevolent totalitarian government pretty quick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's ridiculous.

 

and, for the record, the government _has_ been left to bush and people like him for the past 6 years. no closer to "benevolent totalitarian government" now than ever.

 

taks

Edited November 28, 200619 yr by taks

The Netherlands number three? That's pretty kickass.

 

So why do all our politicians keep saying "our country is ****ed up and terrible"?