News What Alternative kind of Government do you Support?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around exploring alternative forms of government, explicitly excluding democracy, republics, fascism, and communism. Participants propose various systems, including anarcho-syndicalism, technocracy, and hybrid models that combine capitalist and socialist principles. A significant point of contention is the role of government in regulating corporations and ensuring fair wages and working conditions. Some argue for minimal government intervention, advocating for local decision-making and privatization of services, while others emphasize the need for a strong central government to prevent corporate exploitation and protect workers' rights. The conversation also touches on the complexities of capitalism, including issues of wage disparity, the impact of competition, and the necessity of social safety nets for those unable to support themselves due to various circumstances. Overall, the thread highlights a diverse range of ideas and concerns about governance, economic systems, and social justice.
  • #121
loseyourname said:
What happens if you end up with 150 candidates?
I think we should devote an entire thread to this. But honestly, what's better? Only hearing about 2 candidates from each party, or not being able to make up your mind between 150 of them? I'm sure we could figure out a way to eliminate a few of the contestants.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Smurf said:
I'm sure we could figure out a way to eliminate a few of the contestants.
Jousting? Chariot races? Segway races?
 
  • #123
All very good ideas :-p
 
  • #124
loseyourname said:
If we did abolish all political parties, though, where would the candidates come from?

Everyone would be an independent candidate. Maybe the current laws for independent candidates would work, I don't know, but I think it does deserve another thread.
Jousting would be good. Or human chess games. Serve huge chunks of meat and it would be just like a Renaissance fair.
 
  • #125
russ_watters said:
I don't think you understand what he meant: All (I think) voting machines have a "straight party" button or lever you can use to automatically select all the candidates from one party. I didn't think anyone used those anymore until my roommate told me he did. I can't tell you how much that annoys me - its the ultimate in uninformed, knee-jerk voting.

I would actually be in favor of removing party affiliations from the ballots: just list the names.

There's nothing wrong with political parties. It's the simple principle of strength through unity.

But Russ's idea of removing party affiliations from the ballots is a great one. You can't bar citizens from voting just because they pay no opinion to politics. But you can at least try to make the uninformed votes balance out so they don't influence the election.

This is especially important for local elections. Most candidates adapt to the area they hope to represent. A Western Democrat (from New Mexico, Arizona, Nebraska, for example) has little resemblance to a New York Democrat (except in Congress or as President where they have to maintain an alliance to get any of their projects passed). I've sometimes found local Democratic candidates to be a better choice than the Republican candidate - especially having lived the last twenty-some years in Repubican strongholds where ultra-conservatives can sometimes make a successful bid for office.
 
  • #126
BobG said:
Especially having lived the last twenty-some years in Repubican strongholds where ultra-conservatives can sometimes make a successful bid for office.
Yeah, wolfowitz is a b**** eh?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 121 ·
5
Replies
121
Views
13K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
13K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K