sizy_one wrote:
> On May 6, 8:40 am, "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. Bluster 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.
I'd agree with that alright, but people don't vote on the airtime they
get but what comes over during it. It could be a double edged sword
after all. Hoist by their own petard etc.
>>> 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.
Yes, I'd agree with that, it's not a bad idea. Party political
broadcasts are probably pretty boring for most people and they'd rather
see the latest episode of whatever series they follow. They could,
following your suggestion, tune in if they were interested and ignore it
if they weren't.
> The same with newspapers. A separate publication could be
> used entirely for coverage.
More difficult I think as in the case of newspapers it isn't presented
as it comes out from Labour/Liberal Democrat or Conservative central
office but interpreted and commented on. They need something to fill
their rags with other stuff than just tits, bums and competitions.
> 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.
Well we get a far larger percentage of BNPers here than in the general
media so the outlet is there. I can see no reason to give small parties
equal airtime just because they happen to exist. First they have to
prove their usefulness and representation, which, so far, they haven't.
I'd agree that the current system is weighted against them but that has
probably always been the case. If their ideas are valid and valuable
then people will listen.
|
