Most of the criticisms of Instant-Runoff Voting seem to be people objecting to how it deals with its preference data. But that’s data other voting systems don’t even collect, so how can they claim superiority? It’s still an improvement over several other systems–and a vast improvement over FPTP–in that you get to vote for the person you want, and have alternatives ranked as you please.
But, it’s not a socialist party. Check out its issues; now, compare and contrast with thoseof even a moderately socialist organization like the Democratic Socialists of America.
Wait, you mean, scientific and technological research? At present that is handled/funded by (1) academia, (2) profit-oriented business corporations, (3) non-profit foundations, and (4) some government agencies. You don’t think that’s enough?
Considering how far to the right they seem to have moved, how do they keep winning elections in such a (reputedly) liberal political culture as Canada’s?
I see, I hadn’t really looked into the Party’s issues that closely.
Close, although I know technocracy is a loaded term due to past failures. I’d be more for a new arm of the government, not unlike the military, that would get it’s own budget on where to lay new research and how to implement and forge bills on new technologies.
Science, as applied to the military and commonwealth is reaching a tipping point. Either it’s fueled on its own merits in academia (rare), or out-right paid for by the military, government grants (burdened with agendas), or corporate R&D.
There’s a ton of areas that really need to be explored and developed much faster than it’s currently being handled (green tech, bio-tech, Internet/communications, space, etc.) that I believe are being delt with in very inefficient manners, and their futures are ultimately being decided by laymen; at times ill-informed, misguided, or for downright political zeitgeist. Stem-cell research, fracking, nuclear power, net neutrality, etc. come to mind, that just seem to languish (or thrive to the detriment of other, more long-sighted tech) because they sound ‘scary’ when they could be thriving stepping stones ushering in new areas of technology to our nation’s economy, health and prosperity.
But, this is more a fantasy than anything I’m seriously pushing for seriously on a political level. I just usually vote Democrat.
The problem is, there’s no guarantee that any of them - for that matter, anybody - will represent you in particular. With the current system, there is somebody who is “your” representative in Congress. Okay, maybe they represent a different political party than yours, but if your area needs something done, you can say, “Let’s take it to Congressman ______”. However, with strict proportional representation, everybody represents the party and the nation. Even if it is done at a state level, there’s a good chance that most of the representatives from California are going to be from the southern part of the state - good luck getting anybody to listen to you if you are from the north.
Okay, who just said, “And having your representative ‘represent’ just the political party at the national level is different from how it works now in what way?”
I know of some evangelical environmentalists who, given the choices in this thread, would probably swing between Constitution and Green, depending on whether social conservatism or natural conservation issues were thought most pressing at the time.
I’d still be an independent. I’d stop voting if I had to belong to a political party. And if forced to join one and vote I’d go to prison or leave the country.
I notice BrainGlutton didn’t spell out where the Working Families stand on the social issues.
Are they pro-choice or pro-life? Against or for gay marriage?
There are all kinds of working class families that might be attracted to a Working Families platform, but not if they had to swallow a liberal social agenda.
Well, I do notice the Pubs are running dead last so far, with only two votes – while Constitution has got 5 and the Libertarians have got 29; which says something about the right wing of this Board, I guess.
Bolding in the original. I can find nothing on the website about abortion, but I have not the slightest doubt they’re pro-choice. Consistently lefty all the way.
If you want something combining social conservatism with economic populism, that’s paleoconservatism, and I guess that’s what the Constitution Party (or maybe the America First Party) is for.
In that case… there WOULD be a market for your party, but the name is completely misleading. There wouldn’t BE any actual blue-collar working families in the Working Families Party you describe. It would be a party of intellectual socialists. More College Faculty Club Party than Working families Party.
I have trouble considering this a “right” because it’s not based on what someone is free to do. What it’s really saying is that the rest of society should be obligated to recognize and respect one’s marriage, and people should face sanctions if they refuse to. That sounds an awful lot like a privilege, not a right.
The WFP is not a socialist party; see post # 44. And actual blue-collar working families are not all as socially conservative as you seem to think they are.
Only if you mean political failures; as a result of which, technocracy has never actually been tried – nor even much talked about, since the 1930s.
Ah, but then who owns the patents? There would be political objections to the government owning them – how is it to exploit them properly and bring the new technologies to market? It’s not set up for that like a corporation is.
Whatever; the party’s position on the issue – that SSM should be legally recognized on the same basis as those weird mixed marriages (a man and a woman! :eek:) – is clear enough.