Thought: One body, one vote?

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

This topic has come up a few other times on messageboards and mailing lists that we're on, and I was just curious to see what everyone over here thought of it. (Plus I've been thinking about it more in light of the CA recall election, hehehe.)

Should people in a multiple system be able to cast seperate votes? Or should there be a rule of 'one vote per body,' with everyone needing to reach an internal consensus on who/what to vote for? Our personal opinion is of the 'one body, one vote' idea-- because no matter how different the political opinions of the people in a system can be (and they can be very different indeed, we acknowledge that), if you address the issue of giving individual members votes, that gets into the potentially really ugly issue of who does and doesn't qualify as a person. Certainly, we have several people who are developed enough that they'd be able to manage fine if they suddenly got their own bodies (after some initial disorientation), but there are others who are just sort of shadows-- caught perhaps between this world and another so they can't be fully up front, or people who really do fit the description of having only one role or duty. In short, it opens up a philosophical can of worms, so the way we see it is that it's better if we say that only one vote should be cast on behalf of the entire system.

But that's just our opinion, and I'd be interested to know what others think. ^^


Anthea

Comments

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

I don't think ot would ever be practical or possible for internal members of a system to be granted seperate votes because how would we ever count them? Even we can't tell how many are here at any one time, so it would be impossible to prove for any legal purpose.

What we tend to do for any major decision, whether it's voting or anything else, is we have an internal vote/debate on it first. Anyone with an interest can have their say and vote on what they want to do and we generally go with the majority vote. Usually with most situations there's a person in-sysem who's the "speciallist", and that person has power of casting vote and/or veto if necessary. For political issues like voting, that person would be Louise.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

We've been working that one just fine for fifteen years... One of the questions we'll have to answer in the FAQ some day, "How do you decide who you're gonna vote for?" Well, we're all pretty far to the left for the earth world -- some more than others. Also, even before we knew we were we, we and our birth mom and friends would coordinate our votes and decide ahead of time and let each other know, so that we would 1) get good guys in and 2) not cancel each other out. So in a way we've always done it.

With local officials (the only vote you'll ever make that really counts), we find out the track records of the various candidates and weigh that along with their promises. The only time it really got to be a problem was when we split (yeah) right down the middle on Gore vs. Nader and ended up voting for Nader, which was a mistake.

So we're fine on one body, one vote. It's a kind of In Essence principle, the same as sharing physical responsibility if one of us gets in trouble with the law or something.
Jay

I can wish for society to acknowledge that there is more than one person present, but that is not quite the same thing as equal rights under the law. It might be feasible under certain circumstances, while in others it might prove cumbersome. The culture would have to change drastically for even minor accommodations. Still, I believe that we will see the beginnings of this change perhaps sooner than we think.

Andy

[36.livejournal.com]

In the American electoral system I believe there's the electoral college? One person votes to represent each state so in fact the votes of individuals within the state never actually go directly towards voting for the candidate.

I don't see any problem with seeing the body as the legal entity and then the members within it voting towards the single majority vote they will cast.

it's a race, it's a race!

[cheshire-house.livejournal.com]

the way we do it here is whoever makes it out when the vote is being punched in wins. :lol:
It doubles as exercise for the lil ones and the shy/timids since it makes them brave enough to deal with outside if the prize is getting their say-so. :D

[moonfroggy.livejournal.com]

doesnt matter who is voted for president anyway, cuz he won't end up as the pres
i think one body one vote, but i also think the way voting is done in the united states doesn't work, in other places you get to vote for more than one person and that would be ideal

[pink-spot.livejournal.com]

I think that it should be one body one vote. I lived nearly all my life in San Diego CA, but moved out about 2 years ago. During the presidential election we didn't vote because we were slightly divided on who to vote for, but we also knew the state's Electoral College was going for Gore. So, We figured our vote would probably not count for anything anyway.

Minerva
The Play Pretty Collective

[larzmachine.livejournal.com]

As the not-so-benevolent dictator, I decide who We vote for. Whoever is up votes for that guy. They know what'll happen otherwise (and they also know SOMEBODY will rat), so there's no problem...

Not that it really comes up much, since We're a bunch of rightwing warmongering nutcases for the most part anyway.