On May 6, 1:53 pm, "John of Aix" <j.mur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
The idea is a separate uncommented news sheet/paper free of charge
delivered to the door or distributed through news agents or both.
Something like once a month leading up to the election. Expensive I
know, but if you want to take democracy seriously it has to be paid
for.
>
> > Don't forget the larger parties already have an advantage with their
> > strong party membership 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.
Yes, but I get the impression that only sensationalism gets coverage
which shouldn't just be the case at election time.
> I can see no reason to give small parties
> equal airtime just because they happen to exist.
If you don't you can't say you have a democracy as otherwise an
individual has to make the decision who is heard and who is not.
> First they have to
> prove their usefulness and representation, which, so far, they haven't.
That is the whole point that they can't do any of those things until
they have been heard and if they don't have the platform they never
will be regardless of what they have to say.
> I'd agree that the current system is weighted against them but that has
> probably always been the case.
And it's about time it was changed.
> If their ideas are valid and valuable
> then people will listen.
Exactly, you don't have to read or listen to them if you don't agree
with them but you must be given the option.
It's the only way I can see to create a healthy democratic election
outside the influence of the media. After all it's not the media that
should be running the country.
..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
