Single Transferable Vote

[benny]

Libertarians have a lot of difficulties understanding that the people's will doesn't care about individualism that much.

[Wilber]

In essence making representatives more accountable to the people is not an arguable point. You are saying they are not accountable enough under the current system.

The act of putting almost all the power in the hands of one person and the party discipline inherent in our system, encourages if not forces people to vote along party lines, which makes individual representatives much less accountable than if they had to stand on their own merits and actions alone. Although many Americans also vote along party lines, this is a major difference between our system and theirs.

[benny]

The act of putting almost all the power in the hands of one person and the party discipline inherent in our system, encourages if not forces people to vote along party lines, which makes individual representatives much less accountable than if they had to stand on their own merits and actions alone. Although many Americans also vote along party lines, this is a major difference between our system and theirs.

The more you will speak in individualistic terms about political representation, the more you will comfort libertarians in their belief about minimal government.

[Wilber]

The more you will speak in individualistic terms about political representation, the more you will comfort libertarians in their belief about minimal government.

So you believe in the concentration of power within one individual.

[benny]

So you believe in the concentration of power within one individual.

You should know by now that I'm a deliberative democrat.

[Wilber]

You should know by now that I'm a deliberative democrat.

Whatever that is.

[Wild Bill]

Libertarians have a lot of difficulties understanding that the people's will doesn't care about individualism that much.

Difficulties? It scares the hell out of us!

When you don't care about individuals then you have no protection from the 'mob'. If the mob makes a mistake then you're screwed if you're in their way or have something they want.

Galileo was persecuted because the mob believed the Sun and everything else went around the Earth. Uncounted numbers of people have been hung or burned at the stake because the mob did not allow an individual to hold a contrary opinion, even if he was right! I have nothing against Christians in general but a good number of them these days seem to WANT to have those days back!

I hate to trigger Godwin's Law but I think these examples are appropriate. Two of the most advanced models of 'the people's will...not caring about individualism that much' would be Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany.

Before I would EVER trust 'the people's will' I would have to be shown much better reasons to TRUST the fairness and accuracy of that will! Historically, 'the people's will' has been often dead wrong.

Ironically, all that being said, it still seems to me that here in Canada at least we still don't have ENOUGH populism in our government! Everything often should be in a balance and it always seems that we at least have too much of an elitist system.

Moreover, usually when someone implies they speak 'the will of the people' they have nothing to back that up. They just say that to make it sound like they have majority support. I'm reminded of the Ayn Rand definition of 'the good of society' which went something like:

"Society is everyone in general and no one in particular, but it is never, ever YOU!"

Edited May 26, 2009 by Wild Bill

[benny]

The people's will is a power that comes out of public and open deliberations, not out of elections or referendums.

[Pliny]

The act of putting almost all the power in the hands of one person and the party discipline inherent in our system, encourages if not forces people to vote along party lines, which makes individual representatives much less accountable than if they had to stand on their own merits and actions alone. Although many Americans also vote along party lines, this is a major difference between our system and theirs.

All of the people are not not going to be pleased with government all of the time. I will say that I believe the more government we have the less people will be pleased.

If we understand our parties, their policies and principles, and agree with them, we then vote for them along party lines. I don't see that as a problem. A problem I see would be if they compromised their principles to please special interests in order to get elected. This is the sort of thing I envision happens under coalition governments constant compromise and a willingness to abandon principle for power. It is a justification to abandon principle making overall government even less accountable but perhaps making politicians heroes in a sense if they manage to wangle a "deal".

It is better in my estimation to have one person with limited powers of government than to allow the compromising whim of a coalition government with a broad mandate to determine law.

[Pliny]

The more you will speak in individualistic terms about political representation, the more you will comfort libertarians in their belief about minimal government.

Preferably we keep our resident Marxist happy, I suppose.

[Pliny]

Libertarians have a lot of difficulties understanding that the people's will doesn't care about individualism that much.

I have no difficulty understanding that. Marxists, for that matter, socialists in general, seem to have difficulties understanding there could be a people's will other than their individual concept.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Pliny

[Wilber]

It is better in my estimation to have one person with limited powers of government than to allow the compromising whim of a coalition government with a broad mandate to determine law.

There few limits on our head of government's power short of being removed by a palace revolt within his own party. That being said, I would feel a bit better about such a system if that persons name appeared on my ballot but unfortunately it does not. The best I can do is elect someone who is then under the absolute authority of someone else until the next election.

[benny]

I have no difficulty understanding that. Marxists, for that matter, socialists in general, seem to have difficulties understanding there could be a people's will other than their individual concept.

Libertarians believe private property rights fall from Heaven!

[M.Dancer]

Libertarians believe private property rights fall from Heaven!

Philadelphia Cream Cheese is a taste of heaven

[benny]

Philadelphia Cream Cheese is a taste of heaven

Anarchist

[benny]

The best I can do is elect someone who is then under the absolute authority of someone else until the next election.

The best you can do is starting a political party to your liking. I think you are wasting your time here if you don't do it.

[Wilber]

The best you can do is starting a political party to your liking. I think you are wasting your time here if you don't do it.

33 million political parties. That should work.

[benny]

33 million political parties. That should work.

33 million are waiting!

[M.Dancer]

Anarchist

Menarchest

[benny]

Menarchest

anacho-capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

[Pliny]

There few limits on our head of government's power short of being removed by a palace revolt within his own party. That being said, I would feel a bit better about such a system if that persons name appeared on my ballot but unfortunately it does not. The best I can do is elect someone who is then under the absolute authority of someone else until the next election.

Too few limits, but then our government isn't like the American government in that the American government represents the people and the Canadian government represents the Crown.

[Pliny]

Libertarians believe private property rights fall from Heaven!

Libertarians believe that no one but a criminal would infringe upon the private property of another.

I don't believe too many people understand how property becomes private let alone why the concept is valid and should be upheld. One should be allowed to live their life without threat of the mob or the King or the State infringing upon it - even if they pretend it is for a good cause.

[Pliny]

33 million political parties. That should work.

At last! Equal representation.

[benny]

Libertarians believe that no one but a criminal would infringe upon the private property of another.

I don't believe too many people understand how property becomes private let alone why the concept is valid and should be upheld. One should be allowed to live their life without threat of the mob or the King or the State infringing upon it - even if they pretend it is for a good cause.

John Locke has been quite clear on the rules one has to follow to become a private owner.

[Smallc]

At last! Equal representation.

Yes! We should do away with legislatures altogether and just represent ourselves. Every Saturday night we can gather in the town square and sort out all of the issues.