On May 6, 8:40=A0am, "John of Aix" <j.mur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> sizy_one wrote:
> > On May 5, 10:04 pm, "John of Aix" <j.mur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> sizy_one wrote:
> >>> I stand by the fact that all parties should have equal coverage and
> >>> no assumptions should be made as to their value and worth, to do so
> >>> is to prejudge and influence an election.
> >> A ludicrous idea. I set up a party with one member (me), I find the
> >> cash to stand for election and you expect me (or anyone in that
> >> situation) to be given the same amount of air time and publicity as
> >> the major parties?
>
> > That of course is not a counter argument at all. =A0Bluster all you
like=
> > but if you want a proper democracy that is exactly what must happen.
>
> I fail to see how there is anything democratic about giving a
> (theroretical) onepersonparty the same air time with a party having
> millions of mebers or votes.
Quite simply that a party should win on its policies not on the amount
of coverage it manages to acquire.
>
> > All the names in world you chose to call me won't alter that.
> > It's interesting that as soon as one suggests ways to improve the
> > democratic system people like you get hot under the collar.
>
> I'm all for improving democracy and introducing it into the UK (where
> IMO it doesn't exist) but as I say above, what you suggest is not in the
> least democratic. What would be more so would be if no party had
> allocated air-time.
There are many different scenarios and in the case of TV and radio
coverage it may be that it would be fit to put a side a channel and a
wave length in an election campaign with no other coverage allowed in
the media. The same with newspapers. A separate publication could be
used entirely for coverage.
Don't forget the larger parties already have an advantage with their
strong party member****p base but this gives the chance for outsiders
to at least be heard which is something sorely missed today.
|
