Story was an alternate history/future type story.Politically it was very interesting. There is a term for it but i can not remember it. It is somewhere between independent and anarchy. I remember that one of the requirements in an election was "none of the above" was on the ballot.
thanks for any help
meangene
looked it up. Libertarian is the term I was looking for.
never-mind! For some reason my old brain decided to start working again (at least for a short time). It was "The Probability broach" by L. Niel Smith.
I vaguely recall a DT short where the incumbent is killed (and eaten?) at the end of their term.
I vaguely recall a DT short where the incumbent is killed (and eaten?) at the end of their term.
The Goblin Tower, by Sprague de Camp, has a country where the king is beheaded after a 5-year term - and whoever catches the thrown head becomes the next king. Not a short story, though, but part of his 'Reluctant King' trilogy, where a visitor caught the head without knowing about the custom!
(And probably to the chagrin of Dick, I'll point out the potential thrown/throne play on words myself.)
one of the requirements in an election was "none of the above" was on the ballot.
I wish THAT was a requirement in this world...
I remember that one of the requirements in an election was "none of the above" was on the ballot.
down here we do that by not marking the ballot or writing a suitable message on it and it gets listed as informal.
down here we do that by not marking the ballot or writing a suitable message on it and it gets listed as informal.
What we need it a legally effective "none of the above" options.
Here's how I define this.
"None of the above" gets to win the election if it gets the most votes.
If "None of the above" wins, then they hold a new election.
This would be somewhat like a run-off with one major difference. We get a new set of candidates. No candidate who lost to "none of the above" is allowed to run in the do-over election.
This would be somewhat like a run-off with one major difference. We get a new set of candidates. No candidate who lost to "none of the above" is allowed to run in the do-over election.
I suppose you could really upset the major political parties by getting a law change that a candidate must have at least 1 vote over 50% of the eligible voters in that constituency. Thus if too many don't vote you can have a vacant seat because they didn't get more than 50% of the eligible voters supporting them.
Several US states don't allow plurality wins, a candidate must get over 50% of the votes cast (no idea if they count blank votes in that). However, they don't just leave the office vacant for a term, they hold a run-off election with just the two most popular candidates.
Doing it that way lets the same candidates run again.
My way forces a full slate of new candidates, none of whom ran in the original election.
a candidate must get over 50% of the votes cast
That's my point, if the number of votes cast are such that they still don't have 50% of eligible votes they still lose even if they get 66% of the votes cast which is only 60% of the eligible voters as that is only 40% of the total number of eligible voters.
But they won't leave the office vacant, they'll setup a do-over election and let all the same candidates run again, so that difference (majority of votes cast vs majority of eligible voters) won't matter.
My way is better, force the parties to run new/different candidates.
Throw all the 'losing' candidates into a cage, Thunderdome-style. The survivor gets to run against all new candidates. Repeat as necessary.
That's better than either of your ideas...
Throw all the 'losing' candidates into a cage, Thunderdome-style. The survivor gets to run against all new candidates. Repeat as necessary.
They had that in Minnesota, ended up with a retired WWF wrestler as governor. Having said that, I have no idea whether he did a good job or not - he seems to be an interesting character.
They had that in Minnesota, ended up with a retired WWF wrestler as governor.
They elected an ex comedian to the US Senate.
Must be something in the water in Minnesota
So, California had an actor as senator with two actors and any number of clowns as governor.
The funny part is that that the senator and one of the governors were legitimately conservative. And there are lots of sane people living in California. They just don't live anywhere the big cities.
And there are lots of sane people living in California.
Nope. Sane people aren't allowed to live in California.
Washington DC reelected a convicted coke user to be their mayor.
Drinking Coke is a criminal offense in DC?
Drinking Coke is a criminal offense in DC?
Not that, he burned coke, a fuel derived from coal, to heat his house and was convicted for extreme pollution.
I'm pretty sure the idea of (re)electing a crackhead was the response of DC to their opinion of politicians in general. Or maybe he'd just used with that many of the voters they thought of him as one of themselves.
One thing the DC mayor had as a power at one time was changing the license plate issued by the city. IIRC the crackhead got frustrated with congress once and changed the 'slogan' part of the plate to "Taxation Without Representation"
Didn't go over well.
IIRC the crackhead got frustrated with congress once and changed the 'slogan' part of the plate to "Taxation Without Representation"
Didn't go over well.
Most CongressCritters spend more time living in DC than in their "home" states. I'd argue that DC is better represented than any state. Taxation Without Representation my Aunt Annie's Ass.
DC at the time had basically a guy who could hang out at Congress but wasn't allowed to vote. While many congress critters are residents of DC, the residents of DC never elected any congress critter.
The DC Swamp just picked a President whose son is a crackhead among other things. So nothing much has changed.
Well, something similar has happened before. And the cokehead son later served two terms as president himself.
True. Going back even further, the Delano wealth that allowed the Roosevelts to run for office was drug money from the opium trade that destroyed China.
The most recent Democrat candidate for Governor in Florida is a closeted homosexual meth addict. Its appears being compromised is a requirement for high office.
There are 50 States. Taking the losing candidate in one race to reach that conclusion - or your previous one - is being very "adventurous". Yes, I know where the Kennedy family's money came from.
One of those pesky rules here is no politics and this discussion is skirting them.
I suppose you could really upset the major political parties by getting a law change that a candidate must have at least 1 vote over 50% of the eligible voters in that constituency. Thus if too many don't vote you can have a vacant seat because they didn't get more than 50% of the eligible voters supporting them.
Not workable for a great many reasons. Primarily, because it would destroy any rights of third parties.
In a great many elections, nobody gets over 50%. A great many Presidential Elections in the history of the country have had this result. In 1992 Bill Clinton won with only 42% because it was a 3 way race. Arnold became governor of California with only 43% once again because it was a race with a staggering 135 qualified candidates.
And in a great many cases, doing that would literally throw the decision to fill the seat right into the hands of the Mayor-Governor, or the Legislature of the body that oversees that seat. You are essentially creating a system where it could be gamed and a political party could do everything in it's power to prevent anybody from winning, therefore giving say the Governor the power to put into that office whoever they want until the next election.
I suppose you could really upset the major political parties by getting a law change that a candidate must have at least 1 vote over 50% of the eligible voters in that constituency.
It wouldn't be just the major political parties. In many elections, barely a majority of eligible voters actually cast a ballot. It would require much more participation by eligible voters for any single candidate, even in a runoff, to get a majority. What happens in your scenario when no candidate, even in a two-person race, gets a majority of eligible voters?
If "None of the above" wins, then they hold a new election.
This would be somewhat like a run-off with one major difference. We get a new set of candidates. No candidate who lost to "none of the above" is allowed to run in the do-over election.
That's a system I would completely support.
welcome to American politics where 97% either had,have or will have a criminal record before during,or after being elected.
welcome to American politics where 97% either had,have or will have a criminal record before during,or after being elected.
I kind of doubt that is unique to American politics.
Cream rises to the top, but so does scum.
I kind of doubt that is unique to American politics.
In France it's mandatory to have a criminal conviction before standing for office.
AJ
Ok, now I'm going to quote Delaney to you, from https://storiesonline.net/s/18342/the-shack-an-angry-man
"Three felonies."
"What?"
"Three felonies. I read a Wall Street Journal article estimate that the average adult commits three felonies a day and doesn't even know it."
That three felonies a day estimate was featured in a WSJ article but it doesn't originate there. It comes from Boston civil liberties attorney Harvey A. Silverglate. He wrote a book titled Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Many of the stories involving protagonists who have been transplanted to primitive conditions (historical or alternate universe) involve manic bouts of deforestation. Do they qualify as 'dead tree series'?
AJ
...manic bouts of deforestation. Do they qualify as 'dead tree series'?
Only if you are trying to revalue the leaf
hell the Bush family made money as bankers for the nazi party with grandpa Bush running a bank,and Bush 1 was in Dallas for Kennedys assassination.
Bush 1 was in Dallas for Kennedys assassination.
Was he with the CIA back then, too?
Or do you figure Trafficante was the one behind that, instead of the CIA?
Bush 1 was in Dallas for Kennedys assassination.
Was he with the CIA back then, too?
Or do you figure Trafficante was the one behind that, instead of the CIA?
The evidence has been examined and proven by investigative experts without a reason to hide the truth that Kennedy was accidentally shot by one of his own protection detail who wasn't familiar with the M16 he was given to carry and use. When the actual assassination shot was taken and missed the protection detail went into action and the man with the rifle lifted it up and swung it across to use it. he accidentally discharged the rifle and it hit Kennedy. Because the protection detail knew what happened they went to a lot of trouble to hide the fact it was one of their own who shot him by accident because the wrong guy was given a weapon he didn't know how to use and not been trained on. The conspiracy was in the cover up to protect the secret service people.
he was never officially in the cia until being named director.byt Nixon and Bush both were in Dallas and said they couldn't remember what or where they did.my mom was 5yrs old and can tell you today what she was doing and where.
