Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:26 pm
by Dhavlos
what do you mean cross-voting?

i get confused about some of these terms.

also, and this may sound ridiculous, but what exactly does bicommunal mean?

Well, the key phrase in what you said above is "if parties represented both communities". The whole issue is how to achieve this critical "if", because without it we will definitely have deadlocks. This is why I am a strong supporter of cross-voting.


in response, i would like to think poltical 'egoism'(if thats the right word) would be useful here....if someone really wants to be in power, they would have to want bicommunal appeal to do as they wish

either that or we could just make it law that parties have to be bicommunal.......which is not the way to go i would think!

PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:58 pm
by Alexandros Lordos
Dhavlos wrote:what do you mean cross-voting?

i get confused about some of these terms.

also, and this may sound ridiculous, but what exactly does bicommunal mean?

Well, the key phrase in what you said above is "if parties represented both communities". The whole issue is how to achieve this critical "if", because without it we will definitely have deadlocks. This is why I am a strong supporter of cross-voting.


in response, i would like to think poltical 'egoism'(if thats the right word) would be useful here....if someone really wants to be in power, they would have to want bicommunal appeal to do as they wish

either that or we could just make it law that parties have to be bicommunal.......which is not the way to go i would think!


That's exactly what cross-voting is about - giving politicians a vested interest in being co-operative. Cross voting means that TCs will also vote for the GC senators, and GCs will also vote for the TC senators.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:48 pm
by Alexandros Lordos
Am I correct in guessing that our TC friends are ambivalent about this proposal, and that this is the reason they are not responding?