Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Gohlke who wrote (10677)	2/2/2006 5:38:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541542

We know corruption pervades our political process because parties control the selection of candidates for public office. "Pervades" might be a bit strong, but if you really like the word I won't fight it. I don't think that the parties are the main reason for the curruption. If you could eliminate the parties I'm not sure you would even reduce corruption. Individual candidates face many currupt incentives and would continue to do so without a system where to parties are dominent or even in a system with no parties at all. The method must be democratic, i.e., it must allow the entire electorate to participate. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could expand on it. The entire electorate can vote by definition. I suppose that you mean that the inital selection of candidates should be done by the entire electorate or at least a process that is open to the entire electorate? Technically anyone meeting certain legal requirements (possibly age, probably American citizenship and legal eligiablity to vote, for presidents that they where born in the US ect.) can become a candidate. Of course the candidates of the two major parties have a built in advantage, but minor party and indepdendent candidates are still candidates. And if they wanted to "the entire electorate" could (and sometimes even do) vote them in to office. It must be egalitarian, i.e., it must give everyone an equal chance of being elected to public office. I'd definitly like you to expand on this idea. I can't agree with the words as written but perhaps I'm not getting your real meaning. t must (taken from Mary Cluney's comment) involve face-to-face discussion Maybe I should look for her posts. I don't see how this could work. and, I think, it must be in harmony with human nature. I guess that would normally be an assumed qualification, but it doesn't hurt to make your assumptions explicit. Its often a good idea. Tim