data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a question"
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a QotW comment"
you have to either pay people to count the votes, or you invest in electronic vote counting machines. But you will need the same whichever system you use.
The main point is that cost should not be a factor when considering the most democratic method of electing politicians.
( , Fri 15 Apr 2011, 16:44, 1 reply, 14 years ago)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a QotW comment"
Yeh', I agree. Like for example, I'm supposed to get a double-dose of some stuff called Inflixnab/Remicade, been waiting for it for 3 months now, and because of finances, they haven't said yes or no yet. But I can only have the stuff every 2 months, and if I don't get my next dose next week, I risk becoming imume and the stuff not working at all ever again. I was waiting 'till they tell me yes/no, but if I wait longer than next week then the risk is so high, that we're just going to go with a normal dose and next time (in 2 months) I'll hopefully have a dessision.
But yeah', money shouldn't affect these things.
( , Fri 15 Apr 2011, 16:54, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread