Human nature
Pages
| Author | Topic: Human nature |
|---|---|
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 14:52
Profile
Homepage
I repeat my earlier comment... (through clenched teeth) welcome back TM. Anyway, Milu made a good point... capitalism has that inherent flaw, because there's just no way to control human greed without an elite troop of burglars and pickpockets constantly patrolling the bigger estates of the world. What kind of greed-controlling mechanism could we create? Anything we tried to send through the legislative process would be instantly undermined by the elite we were trying to restrain. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 16:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:You misunderstand me. My contention was that the real competition that's going on is between the rich and the richer, not between the rich and the non-rich. S. Robson Walton can't control Bill Gates. The non-rich are just plain out of the loop, for the most part; their existence is necessary in order for the rich to stay rich, but individually they're too far from the rich socially for either group to care much about the other. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 17:26
Profile
Well, I would posit that the US government's system of checks and balances does a pretty fair job of leveling the playing field as much as it can be. The entire system is predicated on the ability to say "no" to anyone's particular ambitions. Unfortunately, this breaks down a bit when one party has complete control of much of the government (like now), but even so, the system holds together remarkably well, I reckon. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 18:38
Profile
Homepage
Hush, Kel... Nobody likes a tattle-tale. quote:Absolutely, if indeed there is no god and our higher thought and reasoning is sufficient. (I will argue as if there is no god though you know I believe there is.) Yet I do not believe our species has achieved a level of reasoning to adequately deal with the emotional stresses of there being no god. If there is no god then all is in vein, oblivion awaits us all, and there is no point to doing anything that is contrary to ones desires. Life is utterly meaningless. I would think this to be quite depressing for the average human being. Is it any wonder why 96% of Americans (I really wish I remembered the source) confess they do believe in a god of one form or another. God gives life purpose, a reason for being good, building character, and coveting integrity. A reason to live, even a reason to die. There is also the 'tool' factor. In the Republic of the United States, the voice of the people has, at least, some weight (though I sometimes wonder how much). Politically speaking, loyalties to a religion can be exploited... er, used to ones advantage. I don't think Bush would have won if Kerry's Catholic convictions hadn't been questioned. In a godless world, the fear of god can be used to reign in and control the masses. -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 20:32
Profile
Homepage
"If there is no god then all is in vein, oblivion awaits us all, and there is no point to doing anything that is contrary to ones desires." I can't begin to argue this point, since I've never experienced such despair. Nevertheless, believing in god is superfluous. If there is no god, then belief is superfluous. If there is a god, then its nature is still unknown- is it benign, compassionate, or irate? How can its nature be perceived? It's a shot in the dark to the extreme, and the idea of hedging one's bets on one deity so vehemently under such odds seems utterly absurd. On the other hand, if you're merely arguing for the belief as an opiate of the masses, well... Clearly, you can have beliefs that cover the gamut. I can't well vouch for all faith being bad, and the abrahamic belief systems alone could be much worse. (I'm not much of a scholar on any eastern religions, but they also appear to be "good" in many ways.) My problem is that modern belief has been conflated with platanistic nonsense that tosses scientific observation out of the window. Divine power does not power automobiles. (The fact that it alone also does not empower factories and firearms results in the "godless" world you so describe, but that's neither here nor there.) "Well, I would posit that the US government's system of checks and balances does a pretty fair job of leveling the playing field as much as it can be. The entire system is predicated on the ability to say "no" to anyone's particular ambitions. Unfortunately, this breaks down a bit when one party has complete control of much of the government (like now), but even so, the system holds together remarkably well, I reckon." Thanks for defending the status-quo, cracker child. What about the impossibly destitute from birth onwards? What about the minorities and females? The latter of whom, statistically, leaves out housewives; let us also not forget that non-productive minorities can be jailed to prevent wasting dollars on dreaded welfare. (And those minorities can then be used in prison work schemes where they not only build whitey's monuments without being paid, they can also wear funny uniforms and be feared and hated!) What about the shrinking middle class, the increasing class divides, the corporate abuses across the board, etc? Oh, and that pesky third world... Of whom, inevitably, we are the saving graces of- their union-free, six-feet-under salary jobs are provided by our graces, of course. So yeah- the system holds together very well indeed. Efficient like a southern plantation. (Now honestly, I fear saying doomsday tales like this- it's the quickest way I get barked down at every social situation I've ever encountered. People like hearing that things are a-okay, and I'm equally sure that nobody will address the artifices of whitey when put in such blunt terms, but I think it needs to be put frankly regardless.) -- Thuryl- Yeah, that works. It's just that your first version of it was vague with regards to that. -------------------- 私のバラドですそしてころしたいいらればころす Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 22:20
Profile
Homepage
This is quite a fast moving discussion. So many things to talk about... :) About happiness, how happy a person is depends on his level of satisfaction with what he has, rather than on any measure on an absolute scale. It's possible that the more wealth and power a person collects, the more he want, making him less, rather than more happy. As for greed, violence and other negative traits being favorable factors for natural selection, there is an interesting paradox here: On one hand, the more selfish and amoral a person is, the higher his chance to survive, pass on his genes, etc. On the other hand, a society composed entirely of selfish, amoral people would quickly devour itself and die out. So there is a balance between the forse that says that that a person should look after his own interests and the forse that says that everybody needs to help society as a whole. In terms of people's individual feelings this means that greed, hunger for power, etc. are balanced by compassion, satisfaction recieved from helping others, etc. The gratitude and admiration of people whom you help feed the same desire for power as the envy and servility of people whom you control. On the level of society, there is the similar need to create motivations for people to do things good for society as a whole. This is where such ideas as admiration for heroes and, more recently, patriotism come from. When your village is being attacked by nomads, any individual would be better off hiding at home, but if everybody hides at home, everybody gets sold into slavery. (More recent examples get too much into contriversial politics, so they get harder to explain.) This is also the reason why neither pure communism nor pure capitalism can work: Pure communism is complete subjugation of individual needs to the needs of society. This means that a few people who do not fit the norm and look out for themselves first would reap huge benefits at the expense of everybody else. Some anomalies are unavoidable, so there will always be a few selfish people, no matter how hard you try. This is what happened in USSR and all other places that tried to build communism on great scale. On the other hand, pure capitalism is the complete disappearance of caring for needs of society as a whole. Such society would quickly devour itself and collapse from the first major calamity that would require people to work together. [ Wednesday, July 13, 2005 22:22: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5368
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 22:43
Profile
quote:I disagree. Even without the slightest touch of ethics, groups of people will band together for mutual protection and betterment. This is seen everywhere in the darkest corners of history. Bandits, old west outlaws, pirates, gangs. Everywhere. It is natural for men to circle their wagons when danger comes. It doesn't matter how much you wan't the person next to you dead, you will still protect him like a brother. He is another pair of hands to hold another gun. With him alive and fighting, you have a better shot at staying alive yourself. Something similar holds true for leaders. Out of anarchy strong but ruthless men are born. Others follow them not because they agree with their vision of the world or because they have loyalty. They follow because the man can lead... and is good at it. Following him, you have a better chance of making it through the day than if you went off to fend for yourself or if you tried to lead yourself. Society would continue, if in a more fragmented and unpleasant state. Security would be its currency. You give a strong man your service and he will see to it that you remain untouched as long as his empire stands. Much like it is today. Posts: 43 | Registered: Friday, January 7 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 23:16
Profile
Homepage
That's right. If I may mix a metaphor, when you're all in the same boat it's best not to rock it. A family friend supposedly once knew a number of people involved in organised crime, and says they're among the most trustworthy people you'll ever meet, provided they think they can trust you. The ones who don't maintain a strong bond of trust with their accomplices tend not to survive very long. I'm not sure whether I believe said family friend's claims, since if they're all true he's led a rather... illustrious... life, but they're food for thought in any case. [ Thursday, July 14, 2005 04:30: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 04:56
Profile
Homepage
Kel, thanks for pointing out what a great improvement TM has made since he's returned from banning. Only one obscenity, and it was in the first sentence! -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 05:16
Profile
quote:The last I checked, the US government is responsible for governing its citizens alone (though it does now owe support to Iraq, but I'm not going into that now). As for multinational manufacturing in third world nations, the people take those jobs because the alternatives are worse. Better to be making a little money and be able to eat rice than to spend your entire day eating grass from the side of the road. Maybe you disagree. TM, you've done a great job expounding on the faults of the US' system of government, but I ask you: what other system would solve or is solving those problems better? No other system of government allows as much transparency, which is vital because it allows for better accountability to its citizens. Almost all the third world regimes are set up around dictatorships, and the lack of transparency that results allows the rulers the luxury of not giving a damn about their populations, provided there's still something worth exploiting there and that the rulers have the strength to stay in power. Aside from purely physical geographical reasons in some cases, this is the reason why much of the rest of the world is in such a state of squalor, not because the US/the Man is putting them down. Nor is this state of third world-ness necessarily permanent - look at the success of the ASEAN nations over the last fifty years. Of all of these nations, one - Singapore - does not have some form of republican government, and this has more to do with it being a city-state than anything else. Nevertheless, their economic success has everything to do with greater transparency. [ Thursday, July 14, 2005 05:38: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 05:20
Profile
quote:This is a good example how order arises from chaos. -------------------- Somebody PLEASE turn the heat on. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 05:58
Profile
Homepage
Zeviz, no offense (yet), but virtually everything you said is covered in posts that go back to my first in the topic. "The last I checked, the US government is responsible for governing its citizens alone (though it does now owe support to Iraq, but I'm not going into that now)." Don't forget Afghanistan. What, you were looking for a less terse response? Lemme put it this way, then- when you are imperialist enough that a good chunk of the world is yours, is non-governance of it really an excuse? "As for multinational manufacturing in third world nations, the people take those jobs because the alternatives are worse. Better to be making a little money and be able to eat rice than to spend your entire day eating grass from the side of the road. Maybe you disagree." Your paradox is absurd and cruel- I'm not sure how Americans can gorge themselves to the point where obesity becomes a life-threatening issue, and yet some considerably more colored folks suddenly can't acquire the most basic nutrition required for survival without bearing the brunt of torture the likes of which is unconstitutional over here. "TM, you've done a great job expounding on the faults of the US' system of government, but I ask you: what other system would solve or is solving those problems better?" That's a sabot and you know it- the moment I start getting into the specifics of any "system", the inevitable response is "it's not in human nature". What's worse is that it's inherently biased towards the status quo- Of course this is the only system currently "working", when working itself is a biproduct of the status quo. "Almost all the third world regimes are set up around dictatorships, and the lack of transparency that results allows the rulers the luxury of not giving a damn about their populations, provided there's still something worth exploiting there and that the rulers have the strength to stay in power. Aside from purely physical geographical reasons in some cases, this is the reason why much of the rest of the world is in such a state of squalor, not because the US/the Man is putting them down." Again with pretending imperialism doesn't exist, eh? A large number of the world's most exploitative regimes were installed by us. And hell, a good number of those regimes, even those we weren't responsible for, should be removed by us. Still, from what I hear, it's typical not to betray corporate guanxi with military reprisal, and those bamboo negroids make GAP tee-shirts without complaint, so... "Nor is this state of third world-ness necessarily permanent - look at the success of the ASEAN nations over the last fifty years." Success? What, you mean like Hong Kong, where the divide between rich and poor is so divisive that one man's yearly salary won't buy another rich wife's tea party? Where social nets are completely absent, much to the arousal of supply-side conmen? Ah, but they're all perfectly good at providing amenities to the white man when he comes to visit... "Assuming that human nature won't be changing anytime soon" AUGH Do I post for nothing? Aught I spend my time better by defecating on your respective doorsteps? ... -------------------- 私のバラドですそしてころしたいいらればころす Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 06:37
Profile
TM, you spend a lot of time crapping on the status quo without suggesting a viable alternative. Ideals are great, but there's the matter of practical implementation, as well as the persistent, entropic force of corruption, a.k.a. the 800-pound gorilla you seem to be refusing to acknowledge. Throughout human history, corruption has consistently brought down every regime. To quote Thuryl from an earlier post, "[t]he breathless voice of Should drowns in the roaring torrent of Is and Will." I agree that this is a reality that is depressing as all get out, and officially I'm not at all committed to maintaining it. Unofficially, what are you or I or anyone likely to do to make the necessary changes for the better? How about all those third world populations? Are you doing anything to help them? It's great to talk the talk. The trouble is everyone all of the sudden is either washing their hair, picking their toes, etc. when it comes time to walk, and this is because it's too inconvenient to them, even if the effort necessary is a jot above negligible. [ Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:55: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 10:06
Profile
Over 200 forms of democracy existed in ancient Greece, each tailored to the desires of the people in each city-state. Populations in the tens of thousands. The constitutional congress chose one of those forms, mildly adapted, as the diagram for this grand experiment . Population around one million. Today the population in the U.S. is over 300 million as you need to count all illegal immigrants (just because you say they can't be here doesn't make them not exist in reality). This is not what the founding fathers had planned for when they wrote the thing. It is impossible for a representative government of less than 1000 persons to represent 300 million. I'll let you all work out the various ratios of representative to constituent for each system, but I assure you we are pushing the envelope. Solution? Split the country into 50 areas of dissimilar size and give them the freedom to govern themselves. Encourage adoption of travel freedoms, without making them mandatory. *this message sponsored by jefferson, adams, franklin, and a few other guys* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 10:16
Profile
The founding fathers also didn't envision mass, instant audio and video communication, highspeed transit via ground or air, and the internet. All of these technologies solve a great number of the problems you're putting forward. As to creating what would essentially be fifty different nations, it would signify the death of the United States as we know it, much like separation into three states destroyed Charlemagne's empire. The whole key to the States' success is the United part of it. Why do you think Europe is struggling to unite despite profound cultural differences? [ Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:20: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 10:30
Profile
If you are suggesting that there have been no adverse side affect from the inventions listed, I shall not waste my words. I see how sometimes TM gets frustrated, when rather then discuss the merits of a genuinely offered alternative/solution, you choose to dismiss it offhand using specious argument. Nebraska:Minnesota != Italy:Bosnia Each of the European countries has >200 years of independence prior to the EU idea. Each of those 50 autonomous areas in the ex-U.S. have >200 years of dependence prior to this idea. To compare them is an insult. The recent study finding that in-utero a baby is stewing in a chemical soup including gasoline fumes and mercury surely must give you some idea of the adverse affects of some or all of the work-arounds you described. Maybe that is why children are being increasingly diagnosed with odd disorders. *this message arrived in a bottle from the last safe place on the planet* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 10:48
Profile
Adverse side effects of these technologies are not remotely involved in this discussion, Salmon. My point is that they do solve a lot of the logistical problems involved in adequately representing a population many times the size of the original, responding to your assertion: quote:These technologies, at least the communication-oriented ones, won't ever be uninvented (barring truly world-wide badness) - the genie is out of the bottle - so to ignore their very real impacts on government is myopic. EDIT: Also, the comparison of the states to the nations composing the EU is useful, because it demonstrates the existence of incentives to be part of a larger, unified government, despite profound cultural differences. How in the world is that in any way insulting? [ Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:17: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 11:03
Profile
Homepage
Maybe Nebraska:Minnesota != Italy:Bosnia, but Texas:California::Albania:Serbia, or some other crazy analogies. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 11:09
Profile
Never mind then. *this message concludes this broadcast day - brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 11:20
Profile
Sometimes we would like to see the United States as being the most transparent and democratic country in the world. Unfortunately, we have fallen behind in this regard. Switzerland and many of the Scandinavian countries as well as Canada are instituting reforms which make them much more democratic than we are. The first of these is Direct Democracy at all levels of government. This means the right to referenda, initiative, and recall of elected officials. The second is a superior form of voting called "choice voting" which is based on a formula of proportional representation. We like to say we have the highest standard of living and the most democratic government in the United States. Unfortunately we are falling behind the Scandinavian countries in standard of living and also democratic government reforms. What we have is the greatest amount of freedom to own guns, consume, hold strange beliefs, and inundate ourselves with obscene materials. I like this freedom. But it is eroding slowly... -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 12:45
Profile
Homepage
Ah... direct democracy. If only it could work when 300 million people need to be counted (recount, anyone?). It might actually work if we did the "split up the states" plan noted by Salmon. Of course, the resulting chaos would be horrible (Wyoming and Rhode Island wouldn't last a week). Our real problem is that we need to improve our system, but we need to push the reforms through our rapidly deteriorating system before we can fix it. Because the system is crumbling (or just stagnating), it's going to be harder to make improvements. And as much as we want to make improvements, few people get around to DOING SOMETHING (as Drew pointed out). It's much easier to just sit and complain about what's going on. Example: what happened to the youth vote that was supposed to turn around the '04 election? This brings up a very important point: Politics builds momentum. To stop a bad idea, you need to hit it early. Because it's so much easier to go with what you know than to actually try and change things, people will just take the easy way out. This is why the Vietnam War dragged out so long (why admit mistakes when you could just continue on like normal?). Naturally, the improvements in communication and transportation have put an even bigger strain on the union as we know it. It put a strain on every culture that it touched. Because communication has improved so much, the people in power can press their advantage as much as possible. Had the Founding Fathers seen this coming, our Grand Experiment would've turned out a lot differently. In summary, yes we want things to change, but too many people will just sit there and complain on their blog instead of getting out and voting on the issues that need changing. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 13:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:It could work, using electronic ballot with printout. Of course, the national government doesn't want to give local governments the money to buy such machines, and local governments don't have the money to buy them, so we're kind of at a standstill on that one. Sometimes I think more direct democracy would be a good thing, and then I look at public opinion poll results, and I change my mind. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 14:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:I disagree. Closer contact keeps cultural isolation in check. The idea that half of the country could split from the other half was perfectly reasonable iin the mid-19th century, but today, when you can teleconference across the country and zip all the way across a continent in a few hours, we're neither culturally nor geographically isolated. California and Texas aren't really all that different despite the ideologies. The real problem with referendums on everything is the fact that the average voter doesn't have time to understand every piece of legislation and doesn't have the legal background to understand a good portion of them. The result of referendums would be more real politics getting buried in ad campaigns and lies. —Alorael, who adds his voice to Andrew's. America isn't pretty. The world isn't pretty. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, to paraphrase Churchill. If you can't think of a better solution, stop complaining and start fixing from within. It's not just status quo bias; the onus is upon you (or anyone else) to devise a form of government that is better and still compatible with human nature as communist (totalitarian) utopia clearly isn't. There are certainly socialist systems that work just fine, but they're still just democratic mixes of socialism and capitalism. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 15:54
Profile
Homepage
I see you have misunderstood me... I didn't mean that mass communication and transportation bring us closer to Civil War #2, I just meant that they can really make it harder for democracy to do the job it's supposed to. The ad campaigns and general mudslinging just make it harder for the average person to be reasonably informed (without a bias) than it already is (as Alorael mentioned). Yep, we've got problems. We need to solve them. 'Tis painfully apparent, particularly when we can't get over 30% of the voters to turn out. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, July 14 2005 16:11
Profile
Homepage
That 30% figure... is that of eligible voters? Turnout of registered voters hovers around 50%, I think, so that's a believable figure, given that a significant number of eligible voters aren't registered. Part of the reason is intimidation: "I don't know anything about the candidates or issues!" This is exacerbated by the fact that, from what I understand, American ballots are ridiculously complicated compared to many other nations'. Those from outside the U.S., how many offices and issues do you have to vote on when the executive comes up for re-election? For comparsion, on the last presidential ballot in Berkeley, CA, I voted on six offices (U.S. president, national Representative, national Senator, state Senator, state Assembly member, and local Rent Board member) sixteen state propositions, and twelve local measures for a total of thirty-four votes. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |