Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
However I was attempting to make a valid point and that point is that you appeared to be trivialising the act that occurred by saying that he was drunk, that he didn't know what he was doing, that he didn't think hard enough, that it really wasn't that big of a deal (who are you to judge?).
Actually the judge was the one who judged that it didn't warrant a conviction or the consequences of a trial by media. Your position seems to amount to the idea that "celebrities" should wear heavier consequences for their actions simply because they are celebrities. What it amounts to is that you seem to think the media and the public are in a better position to judge the man's actions than the judge and the police. I can't agree with that.
-
'Real artists' still need to eat.
Taking just the case of musicians, how did they eat before widespread recording was invented at the end of the 19th century?
Piracy hasn't stopped people going to concerts or buying T-shirts. In fact concert tickets are up, at least in Oz and UK, and more than make up for the drop in CD sales. This idea that piracy is causing artists to starve to death is a myth created by the recording industry (whose managers are about the only ones who really do need copyright in order to eat). The anti-piracy movement is not about saving the artists, it's about saving the recording industry.
In my opinion the recording industry model of profiting off the artificial monopoly granted by copyright was pretty dubious when there was a marginal cost in producing the copies. Now that there is essentially no cost in producing copies I think it's high time the industry went back to the former model of making money primarily off performances and started viewing recordings as a marketing tool.
I recommend checking out Dan Bull's response to Lily Allen's recent statements on piracy, it summarises the arguments pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY -
If you support a party, but don't like the local candidate you would have a bunch of choices with single voting, including:
- vote for an alternate candidate, encouraging the party to select better people or lose votes
- join the party you support and lobby/vote for an alternative candidate (or indeed for them to introduce a primary system)So unless I want to get so involved as to join a party, I've really only got two options: choose the wrong person for the electorate or choose the wrong party for the country. The current system lets me choose the best option is both cases. Why do you want to change that?
Your proposal seems to be designed to erode support for minor parties. Is that your goal?
-
However, if I was going to suggest a fairly minor change, I'd suggest removing vote splitting and having party votes allotted to the party of the chosen electorate candidate. That would reduce some of the perceived unfairness.
I would hate to see that change. One of the best features of the MMP system is that I can vote for the local candidate that I think will do the best job in the electorate and yet still vote for the party I prefer overall.
What you are suggesting isn't much different from getting rid of geographic electorates in favour of a system of party votes with only list MPs.