Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Reform to the voting system

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 2:13:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's a great thing we have in Britain called cabinets, and in a cabinet you have specifically chosen members join parties with similar ideologies, or just agreements of some sort. Why don't we form some of these instead of start removing the right to votes?

Also, I vote for a supplementary voting system similar to France, where there are the "elections", then all but 3 or 4 candidates are eliminated from the running, and a second election for these go through.

PRO
1
2
3
4

CON
1
2
3
4

This may or may not happen regardless of number of votes, but the cabinet option is doable without "official recognition" so I was wondering about people's opinion on the subject.

Just so everyone knows innomen currently has a kinda-cabinet, so it's not a radical reform.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 6:51:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 6:44:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This is going to give JT a chance at office, so I vote no.

This is petty. You can't have an ELECTION and not expect someone you don't like to have a possibility of successfully running.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 9:14:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 3:12:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
How about this:



AV is a system which creates more coalitions but keeps the 3rd largest party constantly in government, which is why I prefer STV. However, here we need a strong government first before we get a perfectly democratic one. Supplementary voting creates a strong, legitimate government, which is more democratic than FPTP.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 9:20:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
we shouldnt divide election campaigns based on ideology to run, they should be based on amount of support
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 9:52:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Removing the right to vote" got me. I like DK's proposition (in the form of the video), but I really don't understand cabinets. Can you give an explanation?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:06:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 6:51:50 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 3/16/2012 6:44:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This is going to give JT a chance at office, so I vote no.

This is petty. You can't have an ELECTION and not expect someone you don't like to have a possibility of successfully running.

This gives him an opportunity to band with more popular candidates and thereby be admitted into the inner circle. I do not wish to be arbitrarily banned, so I vote no.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:14:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 10:06:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/16/2012 6:51:50 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 3/16/2012 6:44:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This is going to give JT a chance at office, so I vote no.

This is petty. You can't have an ELECTION and not expect someone you don't like to have a possibility of successfully running.

This gives him an opportunity to band with more popular candidates and thereby be admitted into the inner circle. I do not wish to be arbitrarily banned, so I vote no.

The thing with a Cabinet is that they have reshuffling repeatedly. Any bans against you would be easily lifted, and the banner would be removed from office. Cabinets in fact promote better government, not promote the worse people.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:16:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 10:14:33 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/17/2012 10:06:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/16/2012 6:51:50 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 3/16/2012 6:44:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This is going to give JT a chance at office, so I vote no.

This is petty. You can't have an ELECTION and not expect someone you don't like to have a possibility of successfully running.

This gives him an opportunity to band with more popular candidates and thereby be admitted into the inner circle. I do not wish to be arbitrarily banned, so I vote no.

The thing with a Cabinet is that they have reshuffling repeatedly. Any bans against you would be easily lifted, and the banner would be removed from office. Cabinets in fact promote better government, not promote the worse people.

I doubt that my interest in the site will not waver if I am banned for an entire year.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:16:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 9:52:46 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Removing the right to vote" got me. I like DK's proposition (in the form of the video), but I really don't understand cabinets. Can you give an explanation?

Cabinets are a group of politicians, led by a party leader (and possibly co-leader in cases of coalition) in which the Party leader gives Cabinet positions to members. This keeps the power of the leader, but allows less politically powerful but still politically similar candidates to help with the party. I can give a longer explanation via PM if you want one.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:19:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 10:16:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/17/2012 9:52:46 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Removing the right to vote" got me. I like DK's proposition (in the form of the video), but I really don't understand cabinets. Can you give an explanation?

Cabinets are a group of politicians, led by a party leader (and possibly co-leader in cases of coalition) in which the Party leader gives Cabinet positions to members. This keeps the power of the leader, but allows less politically powerful but still politically similar candidates to help with the party. I can give a longer explanation via PM if you want one.

You do realise that this is already in effect and (somewhat) recognized by Juggle?
http://www.debate.org...
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:37:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 10:19:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/17/2012 10:16:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/17/2012 9:52:46 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Removing the right to vote" got me. I like DK's proposition (in the form of the video), but I really don't understand cabinets. Can you give an explanation?

Cabinets are a group of politicians, led by a party leader (and possibly co-leader in cases of coalition) in which the Party leader gives Cabinet positions to members. This keeps the power of the leader, but allows less politically powerful but still politically similar candidates to help with the party. I can give a longer explanation via PM if you want one.

You do realise that this is already in effect and (somewhat) recognized by Juggle?
http://www.debate.org...

I think Thad explained it best, Stephen.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:45:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 10:19:14 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/17/2012 10:16:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/17/2012 9:52:46 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Removing the right to vote" got me. I like DK's proposition (in the form of the video), but I really don't understand cabinets. Can you give an explanation?

Cabinets are a group of politicians, led by a party leader (and possibly co-leader in cases of coalition) in which the Party leader gives Cabinet positions to members. This keeps the power of the leader, but allows less politically powerful but still politically similar candidates to help with the party. I can give a longer explanation via PM if you want one.

You do realise that this is already in effect and (somewhat) recognized by Juggle?
http://www.debate.org...

To an extent, the President can decide, yes. As we have so many people trying to run, pointing out this option is a good idea. With the supplementary voting, it's not in place, is it?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...