NationStates Jolt Archive

*votes for Zombie Steve Irwin*
*steals thread*

Right now it is 1:00AM in Australia, and the election is (finally) expected to be called later today...

Howard tipped to call election after Canberra arrival

Prime Minister John Howard has returned to Canberra tonight and is set to announced the federal election tomorrow.

Mr Howard's flight from Sydney to Canberra signals he will end weeks of speculation tomorrow and visit the Governor-General in the morning.

Labor is ahead in the polls and has been demanding that the Prime Minister announce the election for weeks now.

With Mr Howard at the Lodge tonight, it is almost certain he will ask the Governer-General tomorrow to dissolve Parliament and have an election in five or six weeks time.

Mr Howard spent the day campaigning in his Sydney electorate, with the only possible hint of his plans for the next few weeks coming in a golf chat with a constituent.

"I haven't been able to play very much lately and I don't think I'll be playing very much over the next few weeks," he said.

Mr Howard continues to insist Parliament is scheduled to meet next week, while Labor leader Kevin Rudd maintains his focus on government advertising.

"Each day this election is postponed and delayed, that's another million dollars worth of taxpayer-funded advertising on television," Mr Rudd said.

Earlier today, speculation continued to mount over whether Mr Howard would end the faux election campaign by setting a poll date tomorrow, but was tight-lipped about his travel plans.

"I don't normally telegraph my travel arrangements, I mean a bloke's entitled to sort of a certain amount privacy about his movements isn't he?" Mr Howard said.

Greens leader Bob Brown says Australians are frustrated by the election wait.

"This is about the Prime Minister manipulating the election date for his own advantage and Australians can go hang," he said.

Source. (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/13/2058915.htm?section=justin)

Oh it is mother-fucking ON!*

*I know not yet officially, but come on, it's on.

*votes for Zombie Steve Irwin*
*steals thread*

Speaking of which... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvkwKwOpYuc)

I've always found it silly how certain countries have to have elections be called.

I've always found it silly how certain countries have to have elections be called.

As opposed to having it fall on the same day every three or four years or what not?

As opposed to having it fall on the same day every three or four years or what not?

Yup. For instance here where regular general elections are mandated by law to be held on the third Sunday of September every fourth year - this way there's no bickering and no opportunity for the prime minister to strategise around the election to favour his own party.

Yup. For instance here where regular general elections are mandated by law to be held on the third Sunday of September every fourth year - this way there's no bickering and no opportunity for the prime minister to strategise around the election to favour his own party.

Sounds like a logical and superior method. There probably is some rationale for this way but it is most likely outdated and stupid like the rest of our constitution.

Sounds like a logical and superior method. There probably is some rationale for this way but it is most likely outdated and stupid like the rest of our constitution.
I doubt it, the prime minister isn't even in the constitution. We possibly borrowed it from the british, and they don't even have a constitution. It'd just be some generally accepted tradition which just fell into place around a democratic dance encircling the insane executive powers invested in our governor-General. By the letter, he should be ruling this country directly under the direction of the Queen and advice of the elected party of government.

I doubt it, the prime minister isn't even in the constitution. We possibly borrowed it from the british, and they don't even have a constitution. It'd just be some generally accepted tradition which just fell into place around a democratic dance encircling the insane executive powers invested in our governor-General. By the letter, he should be ruling this country directly under the direction of the Queen and advice of the elected party of government.

I think there is a fair bit in the constitution about it but not sure how explicit they are, and I'm far too tired to look through my copy now.

Sounds like a logical and superior method. There probably is some rationale for this way but it is most likely outdated and stupid like the rest of our constitution.

Heh, we can't even blame the idiocies of the Australian Constitution on age. It's barely a hundred years old.

Australia took the US, British (unwritten) and French constitutions, threw away all the good stuff, and kept all the dross. Then added some home-grown moronics (such as the right of the Federal Parliament to decide who can or can't have the franchise, on any basis whatsoever) to get the godawful mess this country has now: the single worst constitution in the western world.

Heh, we can't even blame the idiocies of the Australian Constitution on age. It's barely a hundred years old.

Australia took the US, British (unwritten) and French constitutions, threw away all the good stuff, and kept all the dross. Then added some home-grown moronics (such as the right of the Federal Parliament to decide who can or can't have the franchise, on any basis whatsoever) to get the godawful mess this country has now: the single worst constitution in the western world.

Take it from a Yank: it doesn't matter how good or bad a nation's Constitution is if that nation's leaders feel free to ignore or even discard whole sections of it whenever it suits them.

Yup. For instance here where regular general elections are mandated by law to be held on the third Sunday of September every fourth year - this way there's no bickering and no opportunity for the prime minister to strategise around the election to favour his own party.

Riiiiiiiight. Because the budget/policy decisions in the last year of a fixed term can't possibly be designed to favour the ruling party....


With election date flexibility includes things like the ability to toss a sitting minority government (or, in extreme cases - even a majority government if the rank and file turn on an unpopular leader) via non-confidence vote.

In fixed dates systems, you know that every fourth (or fifth or whatever) year is a policy throwaway year where all that will happen is political posturing by both sides, and populist (and often fiscally unsound) decisions made by the ruling party. In flexible systems, the ruling party will often call an election when they are riding high in the polls due to regular ongoing business. Yes, this favours them, but it isn't quite as laden with blatant pandering as the fixed date system.

And a party which calls an election too early for such blatant reasons often risks getting punished for it as voters recognize the reasons and get pissed off that the nation's business is getting held up for an unneccessary election cycle.

The OP seems very happy the election has been called. I guess he found out Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize winner is running for election down under. :D

Riiiiiiiight. Because the budget/policy decisions in the last year of a fixed term can't possibly be designed to favour the ruling party....

Which is completely irrelevant to the date of the election which is left beyond purview of any party to toy around with.

With election date flexibility includes things like the ability to toss a sitting minority government (or, in extreme cases - even a majority government if the rank and file turn on an unpopular leader) via non-confidence vote.

Something that can be done in fixed-date election systems as well. You seem to be under the impression that if a government were to fall and no new one can be formed that an extraordinary election wouldn't be called and we'd sit around waiting for the regular date - nothing could be further from the truth, and the law does indeed stipulate that extraordinary elections to the Riksdag will be held if the Riksdag (not any party, not any government, but parliament) so decides and the Instrument of Government provides that an extraordinary election must be held within three months from the taking of the decision.

A non-fixed date system has no "flexibility" that a fixed date system doesn't have - all it has is extra hassle and a democratic deficit in that a prime minister gets to manipulate the date at his whim.

In fixed dates systems, you know that every fourth (or fifth or whatever) year is a policy throwaway year where all that will happen is political posturing by both sides, and populist (and often fiscally unsound) decisions made by the ruling party.

Ignorant nonsense.

In flexible systems, the ruling party will often call an election when they are riding high in the polls due to regular ongoing business. Yes, this favours them, but it isn't quite as laden with blatant pandering as the fixed date system.

Or they'll just postpone the date until they are riding high in polls and thus manipulate it to their advantage. That is not a level playing field and don't you think for one second that you can fool anyone into thinking that it is. All it is is an unfair advantage to those in power who get a failsafe to attempt to ride out inconveniences.

And a party which calls an election too early for such blatant reasons often risks getting punished for it as voters recognize the reasons and get pissed off that the nation's business is getting held up for an unneccessary election cycle.

And proper systems of government have safeguards against abuse of power built in and not dependent on the public getting "pissed off" or not.

The OP seems very happy the election has been called. I guess he found out Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize winner is running for election down under. :D

Celt, you are the very definition of a one-trick pony.

Sounds like a logical and superior method.
What makes you think that it is both logical and superior?

Yup. For instance here where regular general elections are mandated by law to be held on the third Sunday of September every fourth year - this way there's no bickering and no opportunity for the prime minister to strategise around the election to favour his own party.
Sooooo, if you gave a minority government and it gets stuck in grid lock, it can stay in grid lock for 4 years?

Sooooo, if you gave a minority government and it gets stuck in grid lock, it can stay in grid lock for 4 years?

A gridlocked government in a parliamentary system cannot remain in power, be it a majority or minority government - it resigns by its own volition or by being forced to. In fact the Swedish system forces the government to resign even without votes of no confidence if it fails to get its major law proposals passed, the biggest and most natural one of course being its budget proposal. Sustained gridlocks thus do not happen - gridlocked governments resign and a new government is formed. If a new government cannot be formed after the speaker of parliament has fielded the question, an extraordinary election is held.

You do understand the concept of extraordinary elections, don't you? That a regular fixed date is out of play in extraordinary circumstances, such as a government without confidence? Seemingly not.

Which is completely irrelevant to the date of the election which is left beyond purview of any party to toy around with.


Wrong: your exact statement was that fixed dates created: " no opportunity for the prime minister to strategise around the election to favour his own party"

Using legislative means to try to gain popular advantage is always a facet of having the power under both systems. In both cases it is a matter of strategizing to retain power except one is time-sensitive while the other is more likely to be cash-sensitive.

Something that can be done in fixed-date election systems as well. You seem to be under the impression that if a government were to fall and no new one can be formed that an extraordinary election wouldn't be called and we'd sit around waiting for the regular date - nothing could be further from the truth, and the law does indeed stipulate that extraordinary elections to the Riksdag will be held if the Riksdag (not any party, not any government, but parliament) so decides and the Instrument of Government provides that an extraordinary election must be held within three months from the taking of the decision.


While this may be the case in your country, it is not a neccessary part of the notion of fixed dates, and in any case the fact that there exists a legislative possibility of this happening, in the real world it almost never does. Take the US version of fixed dates for example. Dissolving the Congress is never going to happen and procedures are in place regarding succession of the Oval office for all other circumstances.

A non-fixed date system has no "flexibility" that a fixed date system doesn't have - all it has is extra hassle and a democratic deficit in that a prime minister gets to manipulate the date at his whim.


Again, manipulating dates is a different thing than manipulating policy ever four years to gain advantage. Both are possible, and both have downsides. To pretend that it doesn't happen is rediclous. In the US they call it "election year pork-barrel spending".

And there is no "hassle" to toppling a minority government when the public wishes it. And believe me, the opposition will not topple the government unless they feel that it is what the public wants or they know that they will be decimated in the subsequent election. Indeed, in this case it can be said that it provides system fairness as a minority situation provides the opposition with the opportunity to dictate the election date - not the ruling party.


Ignorant nonsense.


Gosh golly jeepers - now THAT's a well-reasoned rebuttal. It provides a clear point-by-point refutation of my description of circumstances which certainly occur in many countries. Perhaps your country is absolutely perfect and the ruling party NEVER gives thought to an upcoming election when making policy decisions in an election year.

If so, congratulations! You exist in the only country in the world where polititians don't engage in ... politics.


Or they'll just postpone the date until they are riding high in polls and thus manipulate it to their advantage. That is not a level playing field and don't you think for one second that you can fool anyone into thinking that it is. All it is is an unfair advantage to those in power who get a failsafe to attempt to ride out inconveniences.


Election terms are not infinitely indeterminate, and at best there is a window a few months for manipulation. As I said, people react strongly to parties who call unneccessary elections. All I am saying is that BOTH systems provide means for the party in power to provide advantages to themselves. Your notion that fixed dates do not is naive at best, or you are being intellectually dishonest.

And proper systems of government have safeguards against abuse of power built in and not dependent on the public getting "pissed off" or not.

Safeguards against abuse can and do exist in both systems. Pretending otherwise again is rediculous. However I would argue that having a system MORE easily reactive to public sentiment to facilitate a change in power can hardly be described as being LESS democratic. Or less sensible.

A gridlocked government in a parliamentary system cannot remain in power, be it a majority or minority government - it resigns by its own volition or by being forced to. In fact the Swedish system forces the government to resign even without votes of no confidence if it fails to get its major law proposals passed, the biggest and most natural one of course being its budget proposal. Sustained gridlocks thus do not happen - gridlocked governments resign and a new government is formed. If a new government cannot be formed after the speaker of parliament has fielded the question, an extraordinary election is held.

You do understand the concept of extraordinary elections, don't you? That a regular fixed date is out of play in extraordinary circumstances, such as a government without confidence? Seemingly not.

Granting all of this, at best you are describing ONE model of fixed-date electoral process that works due to it's legislative controls and processing.

Extending that notion, as you do, to the idea that it is the fixed-date component that makes it inherently superior is where your argument falls down.

And, indeed, your solution only works because of the need for extraordinary elections - which is to say non-fixed-date elections.

The fact that you require the latter to make the former work certainly speaks volumes to the notion that fixed dates in and of themselves are not panacea to avoiding abuse of power.

Granting all of this, at best you are describing ONE model of fixed-date electoral process that works due to it's legislative controls and processing.

That's what makes me like our system so much - it's organised, it's sane, it's common-sensical.

Extending that notion, as you do, to the idea that it is the fixed-date component that makes it inherently superior is where your argument falls down.

The fixed-date component is inherently superior to the arbitrary nonsense of your "flexible system's" fannying about, but it is not the sole reason that makes our system better than yours, no.

And, indeed, your solution only works because of the need for extraordinary elections - which is to say non-fixed-date elections.

We have had one extraordinary election in 1958, and that was only to the Second Chamber and also prior to the constitutional overhaul of 1970-75. Our system works because it is robust - the extraordinary election route is there to be used in extraordinary circumstances, which basically never arise since governments without support in parliament for their policies do not get formed, and even if they fall a more robust government can usually be formed without the need for a new election.

The fact that you require the latter to make the former work certainly speaks volumes to the notion that fixed dates in and of themselves are not panacea to avoiding abuse of power.

Again - we have needed the latter only once, and only because of some very extraordinary circumstances (1958 was very extraordinary with a very heated and contended fight around national supplementary pensions). The latter are there as a precaution. The fixed-date system has not failed us because governments survive their mandates, thanks to a strong parliamentarian system.

Wrong: your exact statement was that fixed dates created: " no opportunity for the prime minister to strategise around the election to favour his own party"

And within context for those of use who read people's posts, it is obvious that I directed that comment at manipulating the timing of elections and nothing else. And I see the ability to manipulate the date of an election as an extraordinarily large power made for abuse.

Using legislative means to try to gain popular advantage is always a facet of having the power under both systems. In both cases it is a matter of strategizing to retain power except one is time-sensitive while the other is more likely to be cash-sensitive.

It is also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand - the manipulation of dates. "Pork-belly spending" happens in non-fixed date systems as well, so why you bring it up as somehow something damning of a fixed date system is an enigma.

While this may be the case in your country, it is not a neccessary part of the notion of fixed dates, and in any case the fact that there exists a legislative possibility of this happening, in the real world it almost never does. Take the US version of fixed dates for example. Dissolving the Congress is never going to happen and procedures are in place regarding succession of the Oval office for all other circumstances.

We are talking about parliamentarian systems. The flawed USA form of government doesn't interest me.

Again, manipulating dates is a different thing than manipulating policy ever four years to gain advantage. Both are possible, and both have downsides. To pretend that it doesn't happen is rediclous. In the US they call it "election year pork-barrel spending".

And pork-belly spending is yet again something that happens in both systems, but in the fixed date system there is no arbitrary fannying about with the election.

And there is no "hassle" to toppling a minority government when the public wishes it. And believe me, the opposition will not topple the government unless they feel that it is what the public wants or they know that they will be decimated in the subsequent election. Indeed, in this case it can be said that it provides system fairness as a minority situation provides the opposition with the opportunity to dictate the election date - not the ruling party.

That is actually also a huge draw-back and a recipe for instability.

Gosh golly jeepers - now THAT's a well-reasoned rebuttal. It provides a clear point-by-point refutation of my description of circumstances which certainly occur in many countries. Perhaps your country is absolutely perfect and the ruling party NEVER gives thought to an upcoming election when making policy decisions in an election year.

If so, congratulations! You exist in the only country in the world where polititians don't engage in ... politics.

It is ignorant nonsense since it has nothing to do with a fixed-date system or not.

Election terms are not infinitely indeterminate, and at best there is a window a few months for manipulation. As I said, people react strongly to parties who call unneccessary elections. All I am saying is that BOTH systems provide means for the party in power to provide advantages to themselves. Your notion that fixed dates do not is naive at best, or you are being intellectually dishonest.

And our system eliminates the ability to manipulate the date of the election to one's advantage, while yours is made for and invites just that self-serving manipulation.

Safeguards against abuse can and do exist in both systems. Pretending otherwise again is rediculous. However I would argue that having a system MORE easily reactive to public sentiment to facilitate a change in power can hardly be described as being LESS democratic. Or less sensible.

Your system is not reactive to "public sentiment" - it is reactive to those who wish to manipulate the system when they feel public sentiment is in their favour. Our system resists such abuse.

Right now it is 1:00AM in Australia, and the election is (finally) expected to be called later today...



Source. (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/13/2058915.htm?section=justin)

Oh it is mother-fucking ON!*

*I know not yet officially, but come on, it's on.

It's official.

Election day is 24th November... About bloody time, too.

A gridlocked government in a parliamentary system cannot remain in power, be it a majority or minority government - it resigns by its own volition or by being forced to. In fact the Swedish system forces the government to resign even without votes of no confidence if it fails to get its major law proposals passed, the biggest and most natural one of course being its budget proposal. Sustained gridlocks thus do not happen - gridlocked governments resign and a new government is formed. If a new government cannot be formed after the speaker of parliament has fielded the question, an extraordinary election is held.

You do understand the concept of extraordinary elections, don't you? That a regular fixed date is out of play in extraordinary circumstances, such as a government without confidence? Seemingly not.
In Canada, the maximum term for an elected government is 5 years; however, sometimes majority governments will call an election before the end of their mandate.

In regards to minority governments, they are subject to passing legislation that must be enjoined by another party or parties to achieve a majority vote. Certain pieces of legislation are considered matters of "confidence" and if the government fails to receive the required number of votes to pass the "confidence" legislation, then the ruling party is expected to request dissolution of the parliament and new elections are called.

What makes you think that it is both logical and superior?

It doesn't give the ruling government an unfair advantage in campaign strategies, obviously.

Rudd is giving a press conference now. He always speaks slowly and sounds kind of unsure when reading from a script, which is a little worrying. But when he is on his feet taking questions he is great. The debate will be pretty sweet.