• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: From TFTD

Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:39:07 -0700, Marten Kemp
> <marten.kemp@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Robert Miles wrote:
>>> "Marten Kemp" <marten.kemp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:jIednXiKUfuYgX_VnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>> Lupine Predator wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:59:14 GMT, Canth
<kwar6996@bigpond.net.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:14:37 GMT, Colin Campbell
>>>>>> <colinpkcampbellNoSoup@one.more.than.f.mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
> <snip>
>>>>>>> Electile Dysfunction :
>>>>>>> The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for
PRIME
>>>>>>> MINISTER put forth by any party in the 2008 election year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would seem that I have suffered chronic electile dysfunction
for
>>>>>> many years.
>>>>> Hmmm...  I sense a money-making opportunity here...
>>>>>
>>>>> A derivative of Viagra that helps treat electile dysfunction...
>>
>>>> Simple; put "none of the above" on the ballot.
>>
>>> A good idea.  But make sure any needed plans are in place
>>> to handle "none of the above" winning.
>>
>> The election is repeated with a different slate of
>> candidates (that's what "none of the above" means).
>
> Waste of taxpayer money IMHO. What if only the same candidates file for
> the second election? Or, if they're barred from running again, what if
> no one else steps forward, or the people who do are
> cronies/proxies/whatever for the ones who lost?
>
> Can 'o worms, methinks, especially since there are other options.

If the people who step forward are equally unacceptable to the
electorate then the process is repeated. If no one steps up
then I guess the position is either left vacant or someone is
appointed to take it.

>> If the position's not required by law/Constitution then
>> it remains vacant until a winning candidate is found.
>>
>> If the position's mandated (Prez and Veep, forex) then
>> the person next in the line of succession is the Acting
>> <whatever>[0]. For the Feds I'd kinda like to require
>> all Presidential appointees be re-confirmed by the Senate,
>> especially any Cabinet member who will take office as the
>> Acting Prez.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
>
> So, for example, the Speaker of the House would have to do his/her job
> _and_ the president's and vice president's job? Doesn't sound like such
> a good idea to me.

I think that the Speaker or Prez /pro tem/ would have to resign before
becoming Acting Prez, but those are elected positions and somebody else
would be chosen.

> While NOTA sounds nice in theory, it falls down fast when you get into
> the details and consequences. What I'd like to see is Instant Runoff
> Voting (IRV). With that in place, you could have NOTA on the ballot
> without risking a vacant office and another (often costly) election :-).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Sounds interesting and probably preferable, but if you had NOTA
on the ballot you'd still have the possibility of NOTA winning.

> Of course, I'd also like to see the US go to some form of proportional
> representation, to break the 2-party lock, but one step at a time :-).

I read a defense of the current system that said that the current
system forces candidates to pay attention to the country outside
of the 20 most populous cities.

--
-- Marten Kemp
(Fix name and ISP to reply)

Antworten