Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [Politics] Tom DeLay gives it up

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Nathan Odle wrote:

> Here is my take on our political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats.
>
> 1)  Each party consists of a bunch of people who have gotten where they 
> are by negotiating power with little respect for ethics, etc.
>
> 2)  These power negotiations mean that any sense of loyalty beyond what 
> it takes to get elected the next go-around has been left behind long 
> ago.
>
> 3)  Because most of the public pays zero attention to what's actually 
> going on in DC, the power negotiators can do pretty much whatever they 
> want except on a few key issues.
>
> 4)  As a result of 1), 2), and 3) the actual beliefs of the individual 
> politicians are fairly irrelevant as long as they stick together to 
> maintain their power base.
>
> 5)  As a result of 1), 2), 3) and 4), we basically have two warring 
> factions whose advertised beliefs are irrelevant, inasmuch as they exist 
> only to distinguish themselves from the other side and therefore get 
> more votes.
>
> So basically, the American public is being taken for a ride, wherein 
> they're fooled into thinking that they have power in the form of a vote, 
> when in reality they're just deciding which power faction is going to be 
> on top for a few years.  We're trained to cheer one side and boo 
> another, when they're actually pretty much the same aside from a few key 
> issues.

That's a bleek view, but there is some truth in it.  I don't think all 
politicians are the same.  Some are relatively honest.  Also, if you look 
at the numbers, the two parties are different.  I've been showing this to 
people:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/national_debt.png

Republicans favor big business and the wealthy and they tend to be against 
labor unions.  Democrats tend to support labor unions and increase taxes 
on the wealthiest Americans.  We don't need to trust anyone, just look at 
the records.  They are different in important ways.


> On the other hand, short of a revolution there's not much we can do 
> about it so most just find it easiest to work within the system and hope 
> it protects us in the big ways with military, medicine, etc.

We should promote Condorcet voting systems.  These voting systems help to 
break down the two party systems that are created when we are forced to 
vote for just one person.  As soon as Condorcet methods are introduced, 
and we start ranking all candidates, the two parties will be forced to 
take a different political tack -- no more negative campaigning, for one, 
and third party candidates will become MUCH stronger.  We need this very 
badly.  Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_Law

It's pretty amazing and wonderful to think that a change to a fairer 
voting system, one that allows more real choices and let's Rick Buford 
have a shot, can actually completely alter our political landscape.  It 
would happen overnight as soon as we implement a Condorcet system.  Why 
hasn't this been done before?  It is used in small elections, but you have 
to use a computerized system if there is a large number of voters.  We 
have to get a good secure, open-source voting system working.  After that, 
we can change to Condorcet and reap the benefits.  Read about it and 
promote it in small elections, e.g., in your workplace, in high schools, 
etc.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion