Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 4th Sep 2011 15:48 UTC
Legal "Secret U.S. government cables show a stunning willingness by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands (more here) for a U.S.-style copyright law here. The documents describe Canadian officials as encouraging American lobbying efforts. They also cite cabinet minister Maxime Bernier raising the possibility of showing U.S. officials a draft bill before tabling it in Parliament. The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list." Unbelievable. Suddenly I understand why the SFPD had no qualms about acting as henchmen for Apple goons to violate someone's constitutional rights. If a government is messed up, it only makes sense this is reflected in the corporate policies of its prime corporations.
Thread beginning with comment 488548
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Human mess
by Alfman on Mon 5th Sep 2011 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Human mess"
Member since:


"In Sweden, I have met someone who advocated random elections. People are picked randomly in the ID database and designated as part-time leaders of the country. To address things which they don't know, they refer to a public institution of people who work in the field."

Interesting, however I dislike the fact that this system would not be democratic either.

I've proposed some ideas in the past myself.

1. Rank voting, to address the problem when people end up voting for the candidates most likely to win, rather than those they actually want to win. This one is a no-brainer, but would severely weaken the democratic and republican parties such that I doubt there is sufficient incentive among politicians to fix the problem.

2. Revolving door vote. Instead of voting at distant intervals, a public vote could be recorded for each voter until the person dies or casts a new vote. The majority vote would be tabulated continuously (something like every month). This would have significant ramifications, but the idea is that politicians would have a far greater incentive to listen to the public over their own agenda.

3. Vote directly on issues instead of through politicians. A representative might not follow through on his stated plans. And even if he does, our vote for him doesn't imply endorsement of the full plan. People must vote for the candidate on a restricted set of dimensions (which often turn out to be those promoted by political think tanks). This implies that most dimensions will never see the light of the democratic process, and can even result in elected officials pushing policy which completely contradicts the majority view on them.

4. Domain specific elections. Short of being able to vote on specific issues, maybe it'd be possible to vote in representatives on a finer granularity such that voters can cast a ballot which better reflects their choices.

Of course I've heard some people say that democracy doesn't work in the first place because people are too stupid to make the best choices for themselves without political middlemen. Maybe that's true, but I'd still rather live democratically among a stupid people than live under tyrants who are wise.

Reply Parent Score: 2