[338>US119]:11.4=[60x4+59] #0:Taiwan & UK Election Systems. US, Iraq, Mankind. Hakka School Taiwan Election discussion, Mei lunch. Section 8 Lease

Dr.Harold Mandel evaluation of US: http://tinyurl.com/98d2l Iraq to World: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance62.html Mankind a Genocidal Mistake? http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer124.html Fair cool cloudy late: 6:15 up first, full bath, quick breakfst and few emails, while Mei rushes for elaborate Hakka School lunch, 10:45 reach: 10 around tables talk about Taiwan election with Hsu principal's cakes from Taiwan, 11:45 Mei's full lunch with wine chicken. Straight to oh mom sleeping in sofa and aBi inside: mails, arrange and find rental lease and modify Section 8 Housing lease, 5pm to the rental and give her family to sign. Home computer, supper all, emails answer [C]R's answer on UK election system with Taiwan election this time >#0, but cannot use tinyURL.com. Now 12:36pm to finish. Jun computer. Bed 1:25. #0: Taiwan & UK Election Systems: "Where is the Democracy's Problems? #1001+2: Brainwashing & Reasonable Standings": "" [Tsai 05.12.4=7 #2] We have just had a very discouraging 3-in-1 local election in Taiwan, which was filled with accusation of vote buying. Singapore and Hong Kong are famous for being not corrupt. I wonder the UK's system you mention or their system, could be applied somehow in Taiwan. One key factor in KMT's dramatic victory is also being nurtured by their control of mass media, their leaders' visit to China and the Chinese giant media support of them. There also is the factor of the new "3-in-1" system, which combines all 3 local election in 1 vote. KMT's total control of Taiwan under white terrorism of over 3 decades, has resulted in the organizational grip of town politics: they had 195 town heads (DPP 28) last time, and have won 173 (DPP 35) this time. Still very steady control, in contrast to their sudden jump to 17 from 9?"governors" and mayors (DPP 6 down from 14?}, in coordinaton with their town control. Beyond Taipei Times' [ http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/12/04/2003282930 ] story of: "" Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (”n‰p‹ã) was criticized yesterday by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for accompanying KMT candidates to vote "" Associated Press Stephan Grawels: [ http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/12/04/nationalists_triumph_in_taiwan_vote/ ] "" December 4, 2005 TAIPEI -- Taiwan's opposition Nationalist Party won an overwhelming victory in island-wide municipal elections yesterday, putting it in position to push its agenda of reunification with China during the 2008 presidential campaign "" "" The Nationalists' policy is eventual reunification with rival China, from which Taiwan split in 1949. Beijing still claims sovereignty over the island and has refused to talk with Chen because it sees him as a strong supporter of Taiwanese independence, unalterably opposed to the Nationalist platform of reunification. With Chen and Ma at the forefront, the campaign has been marked by widespread allegations of vote buying and fraud. "" "" Ma strongly supported former Nationalist chairman Lien Chan's groundbreaking visit to the mainland earlier this year and expressed hope that he would be the leader to break the long-standing enmity between Taipei and Beijing in an interview with the Associated Press after his election as Nationalist chairman. "" ===================== R. wrote: [Tsai 05.12.4=7 #1] I think true democracy is possible only if one person one vote is based on equal voices in a reasonable and rational social and financial standings. The UK imposes strict limits on the amount that a candidate and his (or her) party can spend on "electioneering". If you go over the limit, the election result can be overturned, and you will be disqualified from the re-run. It happened to two (Labour) candidates about six years back. Labour had to find two replacement candidates. On the other hand, to discourage "frivolous" candidacies, you're required to be sponsored by a number of local residents (I think it's a dozen) and you have to put up a bond - called a "deposit". If you fail to get 10% of the votes cast, your deposit is not refunded. The amount isn't huge - about $1,000. And in exchange you get free postage - one election address (printed at your own expense) is delivered to each constituent for free. For each candidate your party puts up at the election, you get free "airtime" on TV - a five minute slot, shown on all channels. The more candidates, the more "slots" you get. I think you have to put up one candidate in 50% of the available seats to get any slots, and you can't have more than three. TV and radio stations are forbidden to accept any paid political adverts (or to donate any) by law. Result, if you can find 12 residents of any town or area, and can raise $1,000... you can stand for election - and if enough like-minded people do the same and you form a political party, then the amount of publicity you'll get won't depend on the amount of money you raised. It's potentially open to abuse - About 15 years back, Sir James Goldsmith funded an entire political party out of his own pocket, which stood in one election (and lost its deposit in every seat they fought). But that's the only example I can recall in my lifetime. ""