laserlight@quixnet.net schrieb:
> ----- Original Message -----
> Karl:
Well, states which had voting schemes based on the wealth of their
voters and/or excluded poor citizens either completely or restricted
them to specific topics include:
Most ancient Greek city states Ancient Rome in the Republican period Most
medieval European City states 19th century Prussia and, later, Imperial
Germany until 1918
IIRC England in the 19th century and earlier had property-based
restrictions on voting (but I may be wrong here).
Greetings
> Instead of "one man, one vote", maybe it should be "one pound
Ah, the Cynosure voting/funding scheme: money _is_ votes. The winning
candidate is the one for whom the electorate pledges the most financial
support, and all "votes", including those for the loser(s), go to the
Treasury.
Of course, that was only for the low-to-medium-level bureaucracy; the
_real_ rulers weren't voted in and weren't going to be voted out,
either.
Phil
----
"I think... I think I am! Therefore I am... I think?"
-- The Moody Blues
On 14-Dec-01 at 09:22, Phillip Atcliffe (Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk)
wrote:
> > Instead of "one man, one vote", maybe it should be "one pound
And I thought we had problems with campaign contributions from special
interest groups.
Personally, I've always been a fan of the Medieval Icelandic form of
representation. Each free man can choose the individual who represents them in
"the thing" and is allowed to change reprehensive on a whim when and if that
person somehow fails them. (For a more modern interpretation, read Chp. 22 of
Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" or the description of the
Continental Congress from L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach.") Under
this system, the only way anyone can really be disenfranchised is if they
don't choose a reprehensive or there is no one that adequately represents that
individuals beliefs. What the representative actually believes becomes more
important than what district they're from or what party they belong to.
Later,
Karl:
> >There have been a number of countries with similar a
> Well, states which had voting schemes based on the wealth of their
<snip>
I didn't mean "franchise restrictions based on wealth", I meant "vote by
sending money". There are several ways to do this: you might
vote/contribute to a politician, passage or not of a law, or a program;
you might allocate any figure you like, or a minimum, or a maximum. But you'd
have to send the money to vote.
Too practical and requires people to actually become involved. Not to mention
all the bureaucrats (NGO types, of course) that would be out of
work...
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:36:19 -0600 "Mark A. Siefert"
> <siefertma@wi.rr.com> writes:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:36:19 -0600 "Mark A. Siefert"
You may also want to look at Donald Kingsbury's book _Courtship Rite_
[quoted original message omitted]
> ----- Original Message -----
Karl asked:
> Presumably that would be based on money actually paid, rather than
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 02:17 15/12/01 +0100, you wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
Yes, like the richest country on the planet:)
> >----- Original Message -----
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 08:47:26 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> >----- Original Message -----
Geopolitical reality, No Way, Amigo. In GZG terms, it makes the UN/UNSC
more viable a concept. Although if the number of votes was based on
money paid (as in one pounds sterling/franc/dollar/zimplat or multiple
ther of gets one vote) the UN would be a truly perfect model of rubber stamp
bureaucracy with the national group(s) having the most money (richest nation,
say?) playing puppet master(s)...
Gracias,
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 00:36:57 +1100 Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> writes:
> At 02:17 15/12/01 +0100, you wrote:
If one dollar of economy bought one vote...
Maybe that nation is waiting for this to happen.
And if one dollar contributed to one vote in the GZG UN then we could move
political practices from retail to wholesale... and McDonald's would have
exclusive UN restaurant contracts. Don't cry for me, Taco Bell...
Gracias,
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> Most ancient Greek city states
Between the property restrictions and wierdities of districting, less than 10%
of the adult male English population at the time of the AmRev were actually
franchised. US initially had property restrictions, but 1)practically every
adult white male owned property, and anyone who didn't could acquire it easily
by moving west, and 2)we got rid of them in about 40 years after independance.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> > > > "But you'd have to send the money to vote"
How much are we rating the contribution by equipment and manpower? For
instance, if a UN force tries to engage in peacekeeping operations and gets
ignored, taken hostage, shot up, and generally falls on it's face, then a
large nation comes in and picks up the mission entirely (with token
contributions from some
of it's client states--gradually switching over to
more and more of it's client states as the situation becomes more stable) does
that count, and if so how much? Because right now, no matter how much you
contribute to doing the UN's job, it doesn't reflect in the dues.
Also, can you deduct from the value of debt the value of parking tickets owed
to the host nation of the UN headquarters by the assorted diplomats that work
at the UN?
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
From: "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de>
> Just note, that even in the present, there are perfectly good
AFAIK the most complex system is the Hare-Clark system with Robson
Rotation.
See http://www.elections.act.gov.au/hare.html (Robson Rotation means
that the
order of candidates/parties is different on each ballot sheet, just to
make life interesting.)
The Australian penchant for the rather complex optional-preferential
voting is
well-known. But Hare-Clarke is the most complex variant of this - and
some would say the fairest *shrug*. Used only by Tasmania, Ireland, and the
Australian Capital Territory.
The ACT Election took 93 counts to get just one of the 3 electorate's
results. See http://www.softimp.com.au/Molonglo2001.html
It's also somewhat tricky to computerise. But can be (and has been) done
successfully. See http://www.softimp.com.au/news.html#EVACS So the
result
G'day,
> if the number of votes was based on
I'm guessing they'd have to convert to a common standard or countries where
the purchase of a loaf of bread requires a bank note with a truck load of
zeros after the one on it would soon out vote "healthier economies" where a
buck is a single solitary buck not a squillion pestiarochinas;)
??
One Currency, the UN "Worldo" (copycat credit to the pathetic Euro name) which
is pegged to the price of Chocolate.
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:43:19 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
You do indeed recall correctly re earlier English voting systems, and of
course women and people under 21 didn't get the vote until the 20th Century.
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> One Currency, the UN "Worldo" (copycat credit to the pathetic
Now that's my kinda currency!!
By the way we had a visiting European scientist tell us that they'd originally
thought of calling the Euro the European Monetary Unit, but then someone
pointed out that an emu was a flightless Aussie bird, so they swapped to Euro
(the guy may have been having us on, but that's what he said)... little did
they obviously realise that there is a small Aussie marsupial rodent that goes
by the name uro, so now every time they talk about European currency I
immediately think small and fuzzy;)
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:32:36 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
Would make spending it harder if it was chocolate itself but when that was
tried out in 2235 on small focus groups for opinion everyone literally ate up
their profits.
> By the way we had a visiting European scientist tell us that they'd
LOL! I love to see a bureaucracy tap dance around a mud hole only to fall into
a outhouse!
Gracias,
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au
*Snip Snip snip*
Makes it darned tempting to play a dictatorship in-game, just to keep
life less complicated.
_________________________________________________________________
G'day,
> As to the names: The unified currency unit in the EU before
Very sneaky!!!;)
It's Larry Niven. Not sure which book, but in his collections of short
stories. Similar piece to "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> >"Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"
> No, that story is about the problems superman would have reproducing
> taken a machinegun to it during his puberty<G>).
Everyone knows, only Wonder Woman would be able to handle Superman
*grin*
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 09:59:35PM -0000, Bif Smith wrote:
This
> [...]
> (If anyone knows the full piece for this, please post it).
Larry Niven, "Yet Another Modest Proposal: The Roentgen Standard"; in the
short story collection "Limits"; also in an illegal version at
http://www.textfiles.com/humor/nukwaste .
In a message dated 12/19/01 5:58:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> donoghmc@hotmail.com writes:
> > >"Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"
Probably giving a whole new meaning to "Bullets and Bracelets" John Rebori
Never surrender Never forget Sept 11, 2001
> Bif Smith wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
This
> would help keep the money in circulation, because if you horded it, it