Originally posted by KellyJayOur hypothetical country has chosen to define left wing libertarianism as being "good". If our system encourages "good" behavior, does it matter whether people voted that way out of honest desire or simply because they thought it would be more advantageous for them to do so? As long as they end up doing good work, I fail to see how it matters what their motivation for doing so was.
So voting a certain way gives you more power to rule. Are you going
to get honest votes or people trying to get power by voting the way
that gives that to them?
Kelly
Originally posted by StarrmanYou could set the optimum point wherever you wanted. I had chosen to leave it undefined as being the greatest negative number. But if you thought that was too extreme, you could pick any number as your optimum number. Say, people who averaged exactly -12 on the scale would be put into office, or -16, or whatever. Any deviation from that desired number would make them too extreme or too conservative to rule. Perhaps the people themselves could vote on what the number would be, with the optimum number being the average of all the votes cast. Then the candidates whose lifetime political graph most closely matched that new optimum number would be put into office.
Sorry, I re-read my post and it's a little ambiguous. I intended to suggest that people were chosen from the four points already within the allowed demographic, rather than from the entire graph as such. So obviously anyone in the top-left, top-right or bottom-right areas of the original grapoh would be out. The select government would be chosen from the pre-requisite peoples with a -10 score.
Originally posted by chancremechanicMarxist-Leninists would be given a cold shoulder in our country. While they may be left wing, they're far too authoritarian to get a sufficiently negative score on the graph. Just being left wing won't cut it. You have to be libertarian as well. That automatically disqualifies any Stalinists.
Didn't Lenin give this famous speech in 1917? What happened?
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI like your idea but if you can define the optimum point then you can rig the quesions to steer towards it. How about setting the optimum point as the average of the populaces? Wouldn't that be the fairest form of democracy?
You could set the optimum point wherever you wanted. I had chosen to leave it undefined as being the greatest negative number. But if you thought that was too extreme, you could pick any number as your optimum number. Say, people who averaged exactly -12 on the scale would be put into office, or -16, or whatever. Any deviation from that desired number would ...[text shortened]... lifetime political graph most closely matched that new optimum number would be put into office.
In this case it would be Mmanuel that would be president.
With AThousandYoung and Stang as second and third in command.
http://www.odbo.co.uk/polcom3.jpg
It might be interesting to make a series of questions around a subject,
similarly to the political compass with 4 graded options for each.
All answers are submitted and the person closest to the mean average
of the results can be chairman of the debate and must be obeyed.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNot negative enough on the scale. The right wingers are tainting the outcome. As this will be constitutionally defined as a left wing, libertarian country, you would have to score below a certain amount to be eligible. Mmanuel's -7.67 just doesn't cut it.
I like your idea but if you can define the optimum point then you can rig the quesions to steer towards it. How about setting the optimum point as the average of the populaces? Wouldn't that be the fairest form of democracy?
In this case it would be Mmanuel that would be president.
With AThousandYoung and Stang as second and third in command.
http://www.odbo.co.uk/polcom3.jpg
Originally posted by rwingettNo matter how you set it up, your hypothetical country will still have a right wing.
Not negative enough on the scale. The right wingers are tainting the outcome. As this will be constitutionally defined as a left wing, libertarian country, you would have to score below a certain amount to be eligible. Mmanuel's -7.67 just doesn't cut it.
2. Mechanisms of voluntary association must be created through which political information can be imparted and political participation encouraged. Political parties, even if realigned, would not provide adequate outlets for popular involvement. Institutions should be created that engage people with issues and express political preference, not as now with huge business lobbies which exercise undemocratic power, but which carry political influence (appropriate to private, rather than public, groupings) in national decision-making enterprise. Private in nature, these should be organized around single issues (medical care, transportation systems reform, etc.), concrete interest (labor and minority group organizations), multiple issues or general issues. These do not exist in America in quantity today. If they did exist, they would be a significant politicizing and educative force bringing people into touch with public life and affording them means of expression and action. Today, giant lobby representatives of business interests are dominant, but not educative. The Federal government itself should counter the latter forces whose intent is often public deceit for private gain, by subsidizing the preparation and decentralized distribution of objective materials on all public issues facing government.
Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html
Originally posted by rwingettBut surely the scale should be set according to the answers and not the questions?
Not negative enough on the scale. The right wingers are tainting the outcome. As this will be constitutionally defined as a left wing, libertarian country, you would have to score below a certain amount to be eligible. Mmanuel's -7.67 just doesn't cut it.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckPolitical participation is absolutely encouraged. People are allowed to directly vote online on a wide variety of legislation, which in turn plots their point on their lifetime political graph. Those who do not participate in the system are not eligible to hold public office.
2. Mechanisms of voluntary association must be created through which political information can be imparted and political participation encouraged. Political parties, even if realigned, would not provide adequate outlets for popular involvement. Institutions should be created that engage people with issues and express political preference, not as now with hu ...[text shortened]... nts for a Democratic Society, 1962
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html
As this country is constitutionally defined as a left wing, libertarain country, there is no need for political parties. How many differences can there be within that definition? Besides, people don't run for office like they do now. This is a meritocracy with the candidates who most closely match the desired qualifications being appointed to office.
Huge business lobbies and undemocratic institutions are incompatible with a left wing, libertarian country. They are of little concern.