| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 4:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
'78% have a government which they did not choose.'
If only 60% turned out to vote, 40% of the electorate would have a government they did not choose, whatever government got in. If the lazy b@stards can't be @rsed to vote, they have little right to whine for the next 5 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stalinsdad
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
Location: Jeonju
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blair is the next messiah(period) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Seats in the US house of representatives have been frozen since 1911 (due to fears of "immigrant influence"). In the same time, our population has increased exponentially.
|
Actually, it's just the size of the room that controls how many Representatives are possible.
If you've ever noticed, pollsters rarely ask more than 1200 people what their opinion is. A larger sample is just not necessary. The same principle holds in elections. This does not mean that larger staffs are not necessary for constituency services however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 3:14 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Actually, it's just the size of the room that controls how many Representatives are possible.
If you've ever noticed, pollsters rarely ask more than 1200 people what their opinion is. A larger sample is just not necessary. The same principle holds in elections. This does not mean that larger staffs are not necessary for constituency services however. |
Isn't the notion that the size of a room controls "democracy" fairly whacked-out if not full-on crazy?
We are supposed to have a representative government. At this point, there is one rep for every 630,000 people (note, I've seen this statistic as anywhere from 500,000 to 700,000, so I think this number is fair). For an institution created to support the people, does this not make our own reps out of touch?
By comparison, Britain has a rep for every 70,000 people.
While you have a point about polling, it ignores the influence that third parties could have in our government.
What's more, this is exactly why you won't se any congressmen proposing a change to this.
Like the electoral college, it bolsters a 2-party political system.
Given that both parties are corrupt, greedy jack-asses, I don't see how this can be anything but a bi-partisan issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Isn't the notion that the size of a room controls "democracy" fairly whacked-out if not full-on crazy?
We are supposed to have a representative government. At this point, there is one rep for every 630,000 people (note, I've seen this statistic as anywhere from 500,000 to 700,000, so I think this number is fair). For an institution created to support the people, does this not make our own reps out of touch? |
No. I also don't see how adding more representatives would do anything besides add more problems, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 4:19 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
To start with, it costs money to bribe politicians. Less pork for the barrel would be a positive step.
3rd parties?
And this does decentralize power. Wannago?
Kuros,
How do you think British government compares to ours? That's not a dig. Just asking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hwajangsil Ajumma
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: On my knees in the stall
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I expect that Blair (Tony, not Witch or Lionel) is too busy strolling the corridors of number 10 in his silk smoking jacket indulging himself with a little opium and a snifter of cointreau to care what anybody except his Master Dubya thinks.
To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hwajangsil Ajumma wrote: |
I expect that Blair (Tony, not Witch or Lionel) is too busy strolling the corridors of number 10 in his silk smoking jacket indulging himself with a little opium and a snifter of cointreau to care what anybody except his Master Dubya thinks.
To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.
- Oscar Wilde |
Wow, someone still remembers Lionel Blair! What ever happened to that old buggar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 3:38 am Post subject: Re: Use this Thread to Make Fun of Brits |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Also, what is the name for British red-necks? |
Chelsea supporters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Real Reality
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| But, I like the Brits. Well, most of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Isn't the notion that the size of a room controls "democracy" fairly whacked-out if not full-on crazy?
|
If we had a representative for every 70,000 people, there would be 4,000 representatives. We'd need a small stadium for the House. We can't even find 435 honest people to serve now.
I'm not sure increasing the size of the House would do anything much for Third Parties anyway. To win any district, you'd still need to have a plurality in that district. Does the Women's Christian Temperance Union have a plurality in any district? I doubt it. Although the Communist Party might be able to elect someone from Berkeley. |
|
| Back to top |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
