Gingy
Full Member
me and my Dad
Posts: 125
|
Post by Gingy on May 5, 2008 22:41:36 GMT -5
acceptable or preferred? well let's see which is better. i prefer obama to hillary but i prefer kucinich or biden or gore. i prefer preffered.
|
|
|
Post by Benji Duncan on May 7, 2008 17:43:42 GMT -5
Right, but overall, don't you think it is better democracy when you have an elected official that more people find acceptable, even though very few people prefer that person?
I think Kucinich would have won the nomination if that were the situation. More people found Kucinich acceptable than any other candidate. Very few people preferred him though.
|
|
Gingy
Full Member
me and my Dad
Posts: 125
|
Post by Gingy on May 8, 2008 9:00:17 GMT -5
from an objective point of view, the word prefer even sounds stronger.
i prefer onions, i can accept salad withot them.
salad with out onions is not preferrable.
but with onions is BOTH acceptable and preferrable.
|
|
|
Post by Marvin the Misfit on May 8, 2008 13:46:46 GMT -5
I think Benji's talking about overall. He means acceptable to the overall society, not just to you.
In a democracy we are supposed to get a government "by the people." Officials endorsed by the public through elections. I agree it is better to have officials that more people find acceptable, rather than officials that more people prefer.
Let's say I have a small company of ten people and we want to elect the chairman. Dave is the most popular person, at least four people in the company really like Dave, but the other six can't stand him. Randy is only really liked by two people in the company, but everyone can accept him, nobody really has a problem with Randy. It's better that Randy become chairman than Dave. Randy will only be the first choice of a couple people in the company, but everyone can live with him. Dave was the first choice of four people in the company, but six people couldn't live with him. So it's certainly a more democratic choice that we end up with Randy as the chairman than Dave.
How to make elections yeild these kind of outcomes, I don't know.
|
|
Gingy
Full Member
me and my Dad
Posts: 125
|
Post by Gingy on May 12, 2008 21:30:25 GMT -5
ok that clears that up thanx.
|
|
|
Post by Benji Duncan on May 15, 2008 9:48:32 GMT -5
I think Benji's talking about overall. He means acceptable to the overall society, not just to you. In a democracy we are supposed to get a government "by the people." Officials endorsed by the public through elections. I agree it is better to have officials that more people find acceptable, rather than officials that more people prefer. Let's say I have a small company of ten people and we want to elect the chairman. Dave is the most popular person, at least four people in the company really like Dave, but the other six can't stand him. Randy is only really liked by two people in the company, but everyone can accept him, nobody really has a problem with Randy. It's better that Randy become chairman than Dave. Randy will only be the first choice of a couple people in the company, but everyone can live with him. Dave was the first choice of four people in the company, but six people couldn't live with him. So it's certainly a more democratic choice that we end up with Randy as the chairman than Dave. How to make elections yeild these kind of outcomes, I don't know. We get two votes. With one we can vote for someone and with another we can blackball someone, or cause someone else's vote for a particular candidate to be cancelled. This way the fringe candidates cancel each other out. extreme liberals will blackball extreme conservatives and extreme conservatives will blackball extreme liberals, only moderates will get elected because people who vote for moderates will also blackball extreme liberals or conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by Marvin the Misfit on May 18, 2008 22:49:56 GMT -5
It might work, but I think two votes could lead to double the voting fraud.
|
|
Gingy
Full Member
me and my Dad
Posts: 125
|
Post by Gingy on May 20, 2008 16:38:11 GMT -5
from now on all primaries need to be held the exact same day. just like the election.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 2, 2008 15:06:39 GMT -5
Well, some decision has finally been made: www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/dems.delegates/index.htmlIf I understand this correctly, Michigan will split its delegates in proportion to what the Clinton and "not Clinton" popular vote resulted in, which was approximately 55%/45%, AND, will only have the quanity of delgates HALF of what it usually has. This results in Clinton receiving 69 and Obama receiving 59. This, as opposed to one candidate getting the full 256. This is a concocted compromise which penalizes Michigan for holding its primaries early (the "half-vote" part), but yet still somewhat respecting the results of the said early popular vote (the ratio part). Eh. What are ya gonna do? Any solution was an unidealistic loss at this point, and this solution seems as good as any... It may not snuff Michigan's popular vote voice completely, I suppose, but it sure does turn it's volume down to a whisper!... This has the thrill of a baseball game that got rained out!... :/
|
|