What if the millions of Iranians who voted for the opposition parties and whose votes have been ignored marched in front of prisons and demanded to be prisoned? Instead of marching on the streets, getting beaten, killed or sent to prisons selectively, millions could march to the prisons directly. Show up every day in front of the gates. That would be a very powerful message, it would make a mockery of the government's selectively arresting people and putting them to prison and be a strong show of solidarity with the people inside.
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Showing posts with label vote. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vote. Show all posts
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
hairstyle-maniac.com
How about a new website or a new Facebook application where people post photos of themselves taken with different hairstyles so that others vote for the hairstyle that looks better on them? It can reduce anxiety and shorten decision time for men and women who are finicky about how their hair looks and want to have feedback before they make up their mind on a new hairstyle.
http://www.thinkaloo.com
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Monday, July 13, 2009
Voting is Irrelevant
I am your leader. Do you think this applies to some countries? Sure it applies..latest example is Iran
http://www.thinkaloo.com
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Friday, May 15, 2009
Vote Against!
What is your opinion about making the Protest Vote in a democracy more explicit and direct? We consider it a Protest Vote when people vote for a minority or fringe candidate that has no chance of getting elected or when they post a blank or spoiled ballot paper. What if, instead of voting for the candidates we like, we voted against the candidates we don't like and the candidate with the least amount of Against Votes wins. I know it sounds cynical, but isn't the Protest Vote in the many indirect forms it takes more cynical anyway??
http://www.thinkaloo.com
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
How to fight corruption from pork barrel politics
This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 27 February 2007 by member james85
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
Pork barrel politics is spending taxpayers money on projects that benefit special interests and lobbyists. Obama proposed that all such spending be reported online for the public to know where the money is spent. Knowing where the money was spent after it was spent helps transparency but doesn't give direct decision making power to the public. I think online majority vote for all such projects will give people full control.
Our democratic system works this way. On local or national elections people vote for their favorite party and representative based on their ideas and proposed policies. Most pork barrel projects however, even if they are promised and announced before election date do not include details. The devil of corruption however is in the details. We should keep in mind that a lot of new projects and their specifics are decided only after elections are over.
In order to give full control to citizens, voters and taxpayers I think it is a good idea to pass law that requires that for any large amount of public spending, majority vote is required by taxpayers whose money will be spent on that project. That will completely take away decision-making influence from the hands of lobbyists and special interests. This way not only transparency but also control will be preserved.
To those who might argue that this idea will make the system more inefficient, I say this. If you can report all transactions online with the click of a button at low cost, then you certainly can have taxpayers vote online in a day at minimal cost.
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
Pork barrel politics is spending taxpayers money on projects that benefit special interests and lobbyists. Obama proposed that all such spending be reported online for the public to know where the money is spent. Knowing where the money was spent after it was spent helps transparency but doesn't give direct decision making power to the public. I think online majority vote for all such projects will give people full control.
Our democratic system works this way. On local or national elections people vote for their favorite party and representative based on their ideas and proposed policies. Most pork barrel projects however, even if they are promised and announced before election date do not include details. The devil of corruption however is in the details. We should keep in mind that a lot of new projects and their specifics are decided only after elections are over.
In order to give full control to citizens, voters and taxpayers I think it is a good idea to pass law that requires that for any large amount of public spending, majority vote is required by taxpayers whose money will be spent on that project. That will completely take away decision-making influence from the hands of lobbyists and special interests. This way not only transparency but also control will be preserved.
To those who might argue that this idea will make the system more inefficient, I say this. If you can report all transactions online with the click of a button at low cost, then you certainly can have taxpayers vote online in a day at minimal cost.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Why do we need superdelegates in an election?
This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 18 February 2008 by member liz
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
------------------------
A democratic election is one based on people's votes. I don't understand why people who were not elected have power and authority to decide on an election outcome. I think we should remove super-delegates and electorates in US party and national elections. They complicate the vote and make the systems less democratic and transparent.
When Gore lost to Bush back in 2000 not on the basis of the majority of the national vote which he had won but on the basis of more electorates in Florida, that was a setback to the credibility of US democracy. We were criticized for that by people abroad.
I am worried that the tight race between Obama and Hillary might result to a similar situation. What do you think? Shouldn't we simply move away from this system, wouldn't it be an improvement to our democracy to get rid of delegates and electorates all together?
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
------------------------
A democratic election is one based on people's votes. I don't understand why people who were not elected have power and authority to decide on an election outcome. I think we should remove super-delegates and electorates in US party and national elections. They complicate the vote and make the systems less democratic and transparent.
When Gore lost to Bush back in 2000 not on the basis of the majority of the national vote which he had won but on the basis of more electorates in Florida, that was a setback to the credibility of US democracy. We were criticized for that by people abroad.
I am worried that the tight race between Obama and Hillary might result to a similar situation. What do you think? Shouldn't we simply move away from this system, wouldn't it be an improvement to our democracy to get rid of delegates and electorates all together?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
