Senkai
12-08-2005, 22:31
Ok, I just can't figure out what this issue is saying... if anyone could help me, I'll give you a magical rock.
Two Parties For Too Long?
The Issue: Representatives of several minor political parties have joined their voices to object to stiff ballot access requirements.
Option 1: "Two-party politics is squeezing the life out of democracy in Senkai," laments Billy-Bob Utopia, leader of the Pragmatic Radical Party. "The Liberal Conservatives and Progressive Traditionalists have a monopoly on public policy - or duopoly, whatever you want to call it. The point is that there's hardly any difference between them, and their chokehold on the electoral process lets hacks and crooks stay in office forever. Ballot access rules must be loosened so we can give the voters a truly democratic choice."
Option 2: "People are afraid to support 'third' parties because they're afraid of seeing the 'bad guys' get elected," says Hope Silk, a ballot stastician. "But if we changed the system to allow preferential voting, where you can have your votes divvied up among your other candidates if your favourite doesn't recieve a certain number of votes, then that wouldn't be a problem. Then you could let as many parties as you wanted into the game. Deserving candidates wouldn't be harmed - they'd win! Maybe a few radicals would get through, but that just proves what a great system it is!"
Option 3: "What ever happened to 'one man, one vote'?" asks Pete Li, chairperson of the Liberal Conservative National Committee. "Changing the rules will just let all sorts of crackpots clog up the ballot and overwhelm voters with names they don't recognise - this will draw attention and support away from legitimate candidates! How do you expect the nation to function properly if the government doesn't have public support? Oh, and by the way, the Liberal Conservative Party presents a VERY clear alternative to the destructive agenda of the Progressive Traditionalists, and I'll wallop anyone who says otherwise."
Option 4: "Opposition parties are such a bother," muses Charles Fellow, your chief of staff. "If we allowed as many of them to be politicians as those fools in the Pragmatic Radical Party want, it would be very hard on the tax payers - and our own position in power. If we re-wrote the election rules so that a party had to reapply for recognition every time it failed to win a certain number of votes, we could knock our opposition out of the ring for good! Hey, the voters have spoken, and they asked for us. I think that just about settles it, don't you?"
Option 5: Dismiss this issue.
In Option 2 I understand everything until that last sentence, but I'm confused about the other 3.
Two Parties For Too Long?
The Issue: Representatives of several minor political parties have joined their voices to object to stiff ballot access requirements.
Option 1: "Two-party politics is squeezing the life out of democracy in Senkai," laments Billy-Bob Utopia, leader of the Pragmatic Radical Party. "The Liberal Conservatives and Progressive Traditionalists have a monopoly on public policy - or duopoly, whatever you want to call it. The point is that there's hardly any difference between them, and their chokehold on the electoral process lets hacks and crooks stay in office forever. Ballot access rules must be loosened so we can give the voters a truly democratic choice."
Option 2: "People are afraid to support 'third' parties because they're afraid of seeing the 'bad guys' get elected," says Hope Silk, a ballot stastician. "But if we changed the system to allow preferential voting, where you can have your votes divvied up among your other candidates if your favourite doesn't recieve a certain number of votes, then that wouldn't be a problem. Then you could let as many parties as you wanted into the game. Deserving candidates wouldn't be harmed - they'd win! Maybe a few radicals would get through, but that just proves what a great system it is!"
Option 3: "What ever happened to 'one man, one vote'?" asks Pete Li, chairperson of the Liberal Conservative National Committee. "Changing the rules will just let all sorts of crackpots clog up the ballot and overwhelm voters with names they don't recognise - this will draw attention and support away from legitimate candidates! How do you expect the nation to function properly if the government doesn't have public support? Oh, and by the way, the Liberal Conservative Party presents a VERY clear alternative to the destructive agenda of the Progressive Traditionalists, and I'll wallop anyone who says otherwise."
Option 4: "Opposition parties are such a bother," muses Charles Fellow, your chief of staff. "If we allowed as many of them to be politicians as those fools in the Pragmatic Radical Party want, it would be very hard on the tax payers - and our own position in power. If we re-wrote the election rules so that a party had to reapply for recognition every time it failed to win a certain number of votes, we could knock our opposition out of the ring for good! Hey, the voters have spoken, and they asked for us. I think that just about settles it, don't you?"
Option 5: Dismiss this issue.
In Option 2 I understand everything until that last sentence, but I'm confused about the other 3.