Korean Job Discussion Forums

bigverne · Joined: 12 May 2004

'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.

stalinsdad · Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Jeonju

Blair is the next messiah(period)

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

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.

Hwajangsil Ajumma · Joined: 02 May 2005 Location: On my knees in the stall

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

Big_Bird · Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 6:38 pm Post subject:

Neil · Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Location: Tokyo

Real Reality · Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Location: Seoul

But, I like the Brits. Well, most of them.

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

The Founding Fathers put the minimum at 36,000 (I think it's lack of foresight that they didn't also set a max).

By that count, there'd be about 10,000 reps.

As to whether we'd want the max, probably not. It would be very difficult if not impossible to jump from 435 to such a number.

On the other hand, more reps would mean more, smaller districts.

As a basic principle, consolidation of power breeds corruption.

If 1 rep per 700,000 citizens is OK, I'd ask if you have a number in mind that would be too much. If not, then why have as many reps as we do? How about half as many? How about 43 reps? Then they'd have a lot of space in the House. There'd be room for Barca-Loungers, masseuses, and a raquetball court.

Why is 435 the magic number?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

if there were more politicians a company could still bribe them. Just perhaps the price per vote would be cheaper cause each vote would mean less

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Let's say that a PAC blows $400 one night on wining and dining a congressman. Steak, Cristal, etc...

With double the number of reps, that would be 2 steak dinners and something less than Cristal to drink (or double the money).

With a few thousand reps, that would be dinner at TGI with a beer or 10 times the money.

Same goes for campaign donations. $200,000 for one. 100k a piece for 2, or $10,000 a piece for tenfold (or $2 million to buy the same influence).

Would the bribes become cheaper, or would those buying influence have to pay more.

Since 1911, consider the amount of money being donated to political parties. It's increased just as the population has.

Politics is more profitable than ever, and will continue to increase as the same number of reps represent an ever-growing number of people and get more $ as a result of the offices they hold.

The whole thing is already pretty good and screwed (and again, I think that's a bi-partisan statement). Why not try and change it? What do we have to lose?

Even though we have the same number of representatives, the representation of a single individual is steadily diminishing.

The more this happens, the more the idea that we have a government "of the people by the people for the people" is a joke.

suwonteacher · Joined: 22 May 2006 Location: Hwaesodong

Queen's English..... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.