English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Adam Smith warned us about the danger of factions; Pointing out that once a party was organised, it could only be effectively opposed by another..
The American constitution, tried to establish citicen legistrators and failed.
We are plaque by professional politicians, who, while well intentioned, do more harm than good.
Why not have a constituancy jury, whose duty would be to select a panel of candidates, from which we could chose our MP.
Each constituancy would have two MP's (one man, one woman) One voter, two votes.
Obviously we would need to adjust the size and number of constituancies.
Plus the length of service expected from our MP's, no more than two consecutive terms, perhaps?
We all need to be fully involved in our society. This is my proposal
Yvonne Phillips

2007-10-06 11:14:29 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Civic Participation

13 answers

This is why I find politics a very irritating subject, there is no solution when it's politics - there are too many people with too much personal interest in their jobs.
We need a nationwide forum where everyone can have simple access to government proposals and an ability to voice opinions, take part in votes and follow up on subjects of interest.
Online is the best solution to this as almost everyone can access the internet at a library or cafe.
Also TV should be more frank about politics and reporters should have full access to the dealings non national security subjects, the topics should address the consensuses of the people.
The less over paid pompous politicians have to do with politics the more approachable it will become to the average citizen.

Oh yeah and I think that health and safety and poltical correctness need to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to see if there is much worth keeping. I think actual minorities should have a say in what they find offensive, I also think debate on these issues is helpful to let everyone get their point across so that the change can take place, if needed, with as little animosity as possible. I dont think I know a single person who would be annoyed at the nursery rhyme ba ba black sheep yet it's being changed to rainbow sheep. Black board is now chalk board, it's just ridiculous. Im pretty sure most black people would be insulted that you assume they cannot understand colour as a descriptive tool. Things like this need to be abolished because they do more harm than good and most people agree on it.

2007-10-06 11:31:29 · answer #1 · answered by Fiona F 5 · 1 0

Yes when polling day comes,scribble out the candidates names and write "none of the above" at the bottom of the page like I do,why because none of the party's are worth voting for in the UK,they all tow the middle line,they all lie through their teeth whilst giving more free run to becoming a federal europe,and I am not European nor do I want to be seen as America's lapdag,their politics are even more corrupt than ours,and that takes some beating....

2007-10-10 05:28:55 · answer #2 · answered by SkinAnInk 4 · 0 0

Co Ops maybe. Another way would be for workers to run factories everyone running things themselves. There could be an Anti-Rank- ism Movement like The Civil Rights movement but geared to stopping abuse of rank. War What Is It Good For protest. Sound out people in locations that are viable but no tin Funereal Homes about having this carved on their tombstones when they die. A society which makes clear it's protest to warfare could leave future archeologists a good legacy and tell future people what people nowadays thought of war.

2007-10-06 19:37:23 · answer #3 · answered by darren m 7 · 0 0

If ever there was a time when America needs leaders, ETHICAL LEADERSHIP, it's now. The litany of problems is all too familiar—Iraq, healthcare, schools, energy, the seemingly endless series of corporate scandals. What's nowhere to be found, however—or almost nowhere—is the leadership needed to fix things. The problem isn't the lack of potential leaders, however, but a wrongheaded notion of what exactly a leader is. This misguided notion of leadership often results in the wrong people attaining critical leadership roles.

The only valid test of a leader is his or her ability to bring people together to achieve sustainable results over time. It is being authentic, uniquely yourself, the genuine article. Authentic leaders know who they are. They are "good in their skin," so good they don't feel a need to impress or please others. They not only inspire those around them, they bring people together around a shared purpose and a common set of values and motivate them to create value for everyone involved.

STUDY- THOROUGHLY study who you plan to vote for as a leader. You will discern a dramatic shift in caliber and character. Carefully, VERY carefully choose someone with a passion to unite others, not destroy them.

Each member of a society has a civic duty to become well informed by choosing someone for the common good, and not to simply follow someone over a distant hill. It starts with one ,and the movement grows! Information is power. USE IT!!

2007-10-06 17:19:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No we can't find an alternative. This system has worked for over 200 yrs just because you don't like something doesn't mean we need to change everything because you don't agree with how things work
So what have you wanted to say that you were denied the right to say?
Where is it written that your input should be hailed above all other?
Can you fit your head through a door?
You just had your say, your point is invalid, fact-less and reasonless.

2007-10-07 03:49:44 · answer #5 · answered by F yahoo in Ash 3 · 0 0

You do not have to vote for a mainstream party, or even a party for that matter. There are independent MP's in parliament already.

The USSR gave party members the vote from a choice of pre-selected candidates. I do not want to go to that system.

2007-10-06 19:52:58 · answer #6 · answered by The Patriot 7 · 0 0

in straightforward terms 17% of scientists are atheists; in the final inhabitants it relatively is even smaller (PEW 2009). so which you're purely handling an phantasm - atheist 'puffer fish' pretending to be a bigger section than they're. comparable with the LGBT lot. data is your pal, do somewhat diagnosis and ignore with regards to the media.

2016-10-10 10:38:12 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Jeremy Paxman's solution: Only vote for independent candidates.
That way, the whips can't dictate to Party members and get them to vote against their consciences.

2007-10-10 09:44:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes very simple to do. Vote independent in the next election and you will see both major parties change over night.

2007-10-06 11:40:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Too complicated. Have a look at political Anarchism.

2007-10-06 12:18:45 · answer #10 · answered by poppy vox 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers