NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking, and I can't honestly say that I can think of a good democratic system besides direct democracy. Today I took a look at a few, and they're all pretty disgraceful.

- The US: At one point, Obama had only about 2% more votes than McCain, but was leading by about a thousand electoral votes. Gore WON the 2000 election, but lost on electoral votes. Shit system.

- Australia - Something's going wrong; the system results in an entire ruling party doing horrible thing to get the support of TWO senators.

- Italy and Ukraine - It's so bad it makes me want to cry. An election every year, nothing ever improves, corrupt as all hell.

Is there ANY democratic system beside direct democracy that isn't a total farce?

Because we didn't all vote for the candidate you wanted to win.

Because we didn't all vote for the candidate you wanted to win.

I don't even care about McCain anymore. He's a miserable failure who can burn in hell.

I don't even care about McCain anymore. He's a miserable failure who can burn in hell.

THAT is a bit harsh. McCain was put in the Dole Seat-the sacrifice candidate to make it look like the party was trying so that, when the heat died down, they didn't end up going the way of the Whigs.

THAT is a bit harsh. McCain was put in the Dole Seat-the sacrifice candidate to make it look like the party was trying so that, when the heat died down, they didn't end up going the way of the Whigs.

He has failed me, he is worthless. That's all there is to it.

I have to admit, I have no idea how Berlusconi can keep getting re-elected, but you're being overly pessimistic elsewhere. I mean, its never going to be perfect who gets elected, ultimately the main job democracies do is give no guarantees that the person being elected will be able to keep their position, and to stop them becoming complacent because their job isn't a god-given right and can be taken off them on the whims of the electorate. Who actually wins is slightly less important.

I've been thinking, and I can't honestly say that I can think of a good democratic system besides direct democracy. Today I took a look at a few, and they're all pretty disgraceful.

- The US: At one point, Obama had only about 2% more votes than McCain, but was leading by about a thousand electoral votes. Gore WON the 2000 election, but lost on electoral votes. Shit system.


It's an electoral college. Its supposed to be that way.


He has failed me, he is worthless. That's all there is to it.

Bunker talk has broken out already, it seems.

Because it has been proven that a voting system meeting a set of requirements that acknowledge the preference of all voters, can not exist (Arrow's theorem)

Because it has been proven that a voting system meeting a set of requirements that acknowledge the preference of all voters, can not exist (Arrow's theorem)

Direct democracy seems to be far better than any other system.

What event in Australia are you referring to anyway?

Edit: In realistic situations, the circumstances that Arrow's theorem shows would lead to any 'perfect' voting system to fail, are unlikely to happen. It generally requires that there are people who prefers candidates A, B, and then C in that order, and then another group who prefer them B,C,A and another C,A,B. As parties are generally ranked on a linear scale (right to left wing) its unlikely such a circular set of preferences would ever take place, it would be like Republicans preferring Nader to the Democrats.

-Snip-
You've already read my answer to this question. Democracy requires active participation. You don't like it, you change it. Whining doesn't actually make anything any better, so just go and do something about it.

What event in Australia are you referring to anyway?

Internet censorship. They're going to do it to get the support of two senators in a 76-member senate.

Direct democracy seems to be far better than any other system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_theorem

Of course, some systems are better than others. Well, actually there is one system that does meet the criteria, namely unanimous consensus. Which is practically impossible to achieve with millions of voters.

Direct democracy can very easily turn into tyranny by majority, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_theorem

Of course, some systems are better than others. Well, actually there is one system that does meet the criteria, namely unanimous consensus. Which is practically impossible to achieve with millions of voters.

Direct democracy can very easily turn into tyranny by majority, by the way.

Which is different from the other systems, how?

Direct democracy seems to be far better than any other system.

*yawn*

You're assuming people will take more interest in voting and politics just because it's "direct". People are generally apathetic by nature.

You're right, democratic systems were broken. Howard defeated Keating in 1996. The second mistake by democracy was Howard defeating Beazley in 1998. In fact, any democratic election resulting in John Howard winning anything is a fault of democracy, as John Howard should never have had any place in politics.

But democracy was fixed last year with the Ruddslide, and again this year with Obama's landslide.

Ruddslide? So you still support Rudd, huh? You're a stubborn one; everybody else admits that he's been a crushing failure.

I have to admit, I have no idea how Berlusconi can keep getting re-elected...
Snip...

He gets reelected because opposition in Italy is doing an even worse job at governing than he is and because the electoral system has been engineered to get him elected.
Easy as this.

Ruddslide? So you still support Rudd, huh? You're a stubborn one; everybody else admits that he's been a crushing failure.

Everybody else? There population of Australia is 21 477 772 according to the Australian Bureau of Statistica. So, in order for your statement to be true, you would have to find at least 21 477 771 people who think Rudd was a crushing failure. Otherwise, I'll just take you as an overexaggerating troll whose opinion bares about as much base in truth as scientology.

I have a friend who's an ultra-liberal and admits that Rudd is a failure. When he admits it, the jig is up.

Direct democracy seems to be far better than any other system.

Only if you want to devolve democracy to rule by city-state. That's fine in Europe where in most countries half the population live in the capital and the next quarter live in the second city.

In the US, that just doesn't exist. All you'd do is disenfrancise 30 states or so. Why should the people of (say) Detroit be able to trump the will of (say) Wyoming? Just because there are more of them? No. That's why the US Constitution is very specific to protect the smaller states from being swarmed by the bigger ones.

That how democracy WORKS. Why doesn't the US use direct democracy, but then let states secede if they don't like it?

That how democracy WORKS. Why doesn't the US use direct democracy, but then let states secede if they don't like it?

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Because states CANNOT secede. That's what the Civil War settled.

I know, but they SHOULD be allowed to secede. If I was Texas, I would RUN, as fast as possible.

I have a friend who's an ultra-liberal and admits that Rudd is a failure. When he admits it, the jig is up.

But that doesn't make your statemet "everyone else admits that he's been a crushing failure" true.

However, I also call bullshit on your claim of having a friend.

EDIT: A friend who is ultra-liberal and admits that Rudd is a failure whilst also admitting that Howard was better than Rudd.

Is there ANY democratic system beside direct democracy that isn't a total farce?
Yes, the UK. It's an elected benevolent dictatorship, time after time after time.

I know, but they SHOULD be allowed to secede. If I was Texas, I would RUN, as fast as possible.

If they were, there would not be a USA. Balkanization = weakness.

This is why a united Germany is so much stronger today than East or West Germany ever were. It's why the EU is stronger today than it was twenty years ago. Why modern Russia is weaker than the USSR. Why both Slovakia and the Czech Republic are weaker than Czechoslovakia.

You're right, democratic systems were broken. Howard defeated Keating in 1996. The second mistake by democracy was Howard defeating Beazley in 1998. In fact, any democratic election resulting in John Howard winning anything is a fault of democracy, as John Howard should never have had any place in politics.

But democracy was fixed last year with the Ruddslide, and again this year with Obama's landslide.

Hahahaha.

So we have found FeO's equivalent on the other side of the political spectrum. I thought you were better than this Fonzica.

Hahahaha.

So we have found FeO's equivalent on the other side of the political spectrum. I thought you were better than this Fonzica.

I am. I just really hated John Howard. He was a lying scumbag who, if it weren't for his lies, would have never become prime minister (I'm sure we all remember him chanting back in '96 that GST would NEVER be part of his policy and that it was dead and buried). Australia would have been better without his political influence.

But yet you support Rudd? He's been horrible. He's done NOTHING except try to tax the hell out of us and censor the Internet.

But yet you support Rudd? He's been horrible. He's done NOTHING except try to tax the hell out of us and censor the Internet.

This amounts to nothing more than trolling. Grow up.

I am. I just really hated John Howard. He was a lying scumbag who, if it weren't for his lies, would have never become prime minister (I'm sure we all remember him chanting back in '96 that GST would NEVER be part of his policy and that it was dead and buried). Australia would have been better without his political influence.

You are what? You are the left leaning equivalent of FeO or you think your better than him? Really this post proves the first part not the second. Now where you one of the original Howard haters or are you a victim of fashion? And no Australia would not have been better with Keating in charge, that's why the voters very close to kicking him out back in 93, but as Australian voters go they always give Labor a second chance and labor will lose the election after the one they were meant to lose.

This amounts to nothing more than trolling. Grow up.

Unlike some of your posts.

This amounts to nothing more than trolling. Grow up.

I think FO isn't satisfied with trolling the other thread.

I think FO isn't satisfied with trolling the other thread.

To quote Star Wars: "And I thought they smelled bad on the outside!" :D

You are what? You are the left leaning equivalent of FeO or you think your better than him? Really this post proves the first part not the second. Now where you one of the original Howard haters or are you a victim of fashion? And no Australia would not have been better with Keating in charge, that's why the voters very close to kicking him out back in 93, but as Australian voters go they always give Labor a second chance and labor will lose the election after the one they were meant to lose.

I never liked Howard. Your "victim of fashion" comment is quite wrong. Whilst yes, it did seem to become fashionable to hate him, I don't think people did it to seem cool. They most likely did it because they hate his policies.

Ideally however, Beazley should have beaten him in 1998. But Australia has a knack for not voting for the person who would actually do some good for the country (see: 1977 Whitlam v. Fraser).

However, I like how you're defending a party who, on their own, could never win an election.

I think FO isn't satisfied with trolling the other thread.

To quote Star Wars: "And I thought they smelled bad on the outside!" :D

Well maybe you two should stop following him into other threads and stir the pot as well?

Well maybe you two should stop following him into other threads and stir the pot as well?

Stir the pot? Hmm. I see your point. *Vanishes*

Only if you want to devolve democracy to rule by city-state. That's fine in Europe where in most countries half the population live in the capital and the next quarter live in the second city.

In the US, that just doesn't exist. All you'd do is disenfrancise 30 states or so. Why should the people of (say) Detroit be able to trump the will of (say) Wyoming? Just because there are more of them? No. That's why the US Constitution is very specific to protect the smaller states from being swarmed by the bigger ones.

Which is nice in theory, though ultimately it ends up with the entire election of an entire nations winds up resting on a handful of voters in some backwater state no ones ever heard of before. Israel meanwhile has it's entire electoral system beholden to to Shas, whom only a fraction of people actually voted for. I'm not familiar with the situation in Australia, but sounds like another Shas situation.

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Thank you. I'm glad someone thought to point that out.

Democracy is a small government and/or third world concept. It isn't really practical on a large scale. Do you really want the entire populace voting for tax cuts/raises, roads to repair, and military structure? Every single vote?

I never liked Howard. Your "victim of fashion" comment is quite wrong. Whilst yes, it did seem to become fashionable to hate him, I don't think people did it to seem cool. They most likely did it because they hate his policies.

Never liked him of course you didn't your bias was evident from the beginning, and yes it was becoming a fashion to hate him, it made people feel cool.

Ideally however, Beazley should have beaten him in 1998. But Australia has a knack for not voting for the person who would actually do some good for the country (see: 1977 Whitlam v. Fraser).

And even at our last one.

However, I like how you're defending a party who, on their own, could never win an election.

What the hell are you talking about?

I've been thinking, and I can't honestly say that I can think of a good democratic system besides direct democracy. Today I took a look at a few, and they're all pretty disgraceful.

- The US: At one point, Obama had only about 2% more votes than McCain, but was leading by about a thousand electoral votes. Gore WON the 2000 election, but lost on electoral votes. Shit system.

- Australia - Something's going wrong; the system results in an entire ruling party doing horrible thing to get the support of TWO senators.

- Italy and Ukraine - It's so bad it makes me want to cry. An election every year, nothing ever improves, corrupt as all hell.

Is there ANY democratic system beside direct democracy that isn't a total farce?

Direct Democracy is a farce too... It leads to extreme tyranny of the majority and it can't work in anything but a city state (and even then, it's highly unstable... Athens changed government styles like people change underwear).

Never liked him of course you didn't your bias was evident from the beginning, and yes it was becoming a fashion to hate him, it made people feel cool.

John Howard was a liar, and without his lie, he would have never become prime minister. Were it not for his promise in 1996 that GST would never be part of his policy, he would have lost to Keating as Hewson did three years earlier, for the same reasons.

And even at our last one.

No no, the people made the right choice in electing Rudd last year. History has shown that the Libs tend to get elected as the economy is picking up because they supposably handle a booming economy better (by adopting a "I have mine so screw you"esque policy, such as WorkChoices), and that Labor tends to get elected as an economy is dying down because they tend to be more about social welfare and overall helping people get through the tough times.

What the hell are you talking about?

Liberal governments seldom wield power without a necessary coalition with the Nationals.

John Howard was a liar, and without his lie, he would have never become prime minister. Were it not for his promise in 1996 that GST would never be part of his policy, he would have lost to Keating as Hewson did three years earlier, for the same reasons.

According to a political scientist, Hewson (just) lost the election for a couple of reasons. One he couldn't explain exactly how GST was going to work on a birthday cake and a normal cake. The other reason was that during Hawke the country went through a lot of reform now Hewson was going to continue this people got a bit wary and wanted less reform when Hewson started offering up more reform they people went against that. And yes even without his lie Howard would still have become Prime Minister I dare say Keatings lie also had something to do with that.

No no, the people made the right choice in electing Rudd last year. History has shown that the Libs tend to get elected as the economy is picking up because they supposably handle a booming economy better (by adopting a "I have mine so screw you"esque policy, such as WorkChoices), and that Labor tends to get elected as an economy is dying down because they tend to be more about social welfare and overall helping people get through the tough times.

Except the government was still going alright during that time, just wondering where you read this. No they didn't make the right decision but that is something we will never agree on, Rudd hasn't exactly done a great job on the economic side at the moment, his deposit guarantee policy is evident of that as he made it up as he went along.

Liberal governments seldom wield power without a necessary coalition with the Nationals.

Ah I see what you mean but then to say this means that the Nationals who represent country seats would need it. Not to mention that I can name a labor government right now that needed the support of the Nationals to take power. But that is all irrelevant because of the way the Australian political system works.

Democracy has its problems, there will not be a utopian government.

He has failed me, he is worthless. That's all there is to it.

So, essentially what you're saying about McCain is . . .

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31jNaUKeIzL._SL500_AA270_.jpg

Well maybe you two should stop following him into other threads and stir the pot as well?

But . . . but . . . if no one stirs the pot it will burn! Have you ever SMELLED scorched troll?

I don't even care about McCain anymore. He's a miserable failure who can burn in hell.

Wow. Ah, while I may not agree with some of his policies, that doesn't diminish the fact that John McCain laid his life on the line for his country. Anyone who serves willingly like that and then chooses to stay a POW because he was thinking of US morale can be my pal any day.

Um...just not my president.

Except the government was still going alright during that time, just wondering where you read this. No they didn't make the right decision but that is something we will never agree on, Rudd hasn't exactly done a great job on the economic side at the moment, his deposit guarantee policy is evident of that as he made it up as he went along.

A handy rule of thumb is that recessions unseat governments.

Rarely is there any provable connection between that government's economic policies and the timing of the recession. But a recession is an undeniable fact (it has a numerical definition) and is that crystallizing event for a number of dissatisfactions which have built up over the government's term.

Is there ANY democratic system beside direct democracy that isn't a total farce?
Direct Democracy isn't perfect either. unless you consider Tyranny of the Majority to be ok.

that would mean that the Supreme Court can't overturn Prop 8 because the people wanted it under Direct Democracy.

Translation: The Potato Factory dearly misses the Axis of Complicity (Bush, Blair and Howard) and needs a bottle or pacifier. Waah.

He has failed me, he is worthless. That's all there is to it.

You sound like Darth Vader when he kills Admiral Ozzel (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7O1Qd_FNgfM)

You sound like Darth Vader when he kills Admiral Ozzel (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7O1Qd_FNgfM)

Except Darth Vader (and Wayne Brady) could choke a bitch. The Potato Factory can only choke his chicken, if even that.

Indeed, and unlike Vader, it's rather ridiculous.

Direct Democracy isn't perfect either. unless you consider Tyranny of the Majority to be ok.

that would mean that the Supreme Court can't overturn Prop 8 because the people wanted it under Direct Democracy.

Direct Democracy doesn't necessarily mean that no Constitution exists and that the will of the Majority is absolute. Switzerland for example has a Constitution and is a Direct Democracy and is as far as I know not a Tyranny. ;)

Which is nice in theory, though ultimately it ends up with the entire election of an entire nations winds up resting on a handful of voters in some backwater state no ones ever heard of before. Israel meanwhile has it's entire electoral system beholden to to Shas, whom only a fraction of people actually voted for. I'm not familiar with the situation in Australia, but sounds like another Shas situation.

Are you referring to how Connecticut, Wyoming, Montana and Rhode Island always seem to decide the US election? :D

I've been thinking, and I can't honestly say that I can think of a good democratic system besides direct democracy. Today I took a look at a few, and they're all pretty disgraceful.

- The US: At one point, Obama had only about 2% more votes than McCain, but was leading by about a thousand electoral votes. Gore WON the 2000 election, but lost on electoral votes. Shit system.
Obama won the election in every way possible. He won by 7% of the popular vote and swept the electoral college by what looks to be 364-174. How is that a failure of this system?

And you are highlighting your ignorance of the American system. There are a total of 538 electoral votes in the Presidential election, not over a thousand.

- The US: At one point, Obama had only about 2% more votes than McCain, but was leading by about a thousand electoral votes.

buh?

He has failed me, he is worthless. That's all there is to it.

Given his behavior trends, and his whiny sour grapes, I have deduced FO's identity!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31jNaUKeIzL._SL500_AA270_.jpg

I don't even care about McCain anymore. He's a miserable failure who can burn in hell.

As a conservative, I take offense to that.

McCain got a raw deal because his party nominated him when they knew the election was not going to be a "W" for their win column.

McCain is an outstanding public servant, as is Obama.

Given his behavior trends, and his whiny sour grapes, I have deduced FO's identity!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31jNaUKeIzL._SL500_AA270_.jpg

:eek:

The signs were so obvious!

But . . . but . . . if no one stirs the pot it will burn! Have you ever SMELLED scorched troll?

God, I LOVE that smell.

Especially first thing in the morning.

It smells like victory.

Given his behavior trends, and his whiny sour grapes, I have deduced FO's identity!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31jNaUKeIzL._SL500_AA270_.jpg

This is the second time in the 21st century someone had the galls to insult Darth Vader, the first time being when people alleged that George Lucas compared him to Dubya.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14174025&postcount=52

Given his behavior trends, and his whiny sour grapes, I have deduced FO's identity!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31jNaUKeIzL._SL500_AA270_.jpg

3rd time's the charm.

And stop talking to FO. He's clearly showin his ignorance of the US political system, the Australian political system and the world's political system.

He doesn't seem to realise that life has a liberal bias.

Given his behavior trends, and his whiny sour grapes, I have deduced FO's identity!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31jNaUKeIzL._SL500_AA270_.jpg

Me = Ninja (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14173752&postcount=45).

I know, but they SHOULD be allowed to secede. If I was Texas, I would RUN, as fast as possible.

I already live there, and unfortuantely, we cant "cut" and run...though several of our 'Cowboy' politicians would like to :)

Are you referring to how Connecticut, Wyoming, Montana and Rhode Island always seem to decide the US election? :D

Lol

How is that a failure of this system?

And you are highlighting your ignorance of the American system. There are a total of 538 electoral votes in the Presidential election, not over a thousand.

Maybe it was a failure for those who voted for the opposite canidate? ;)

Right, there are far less than a thousand electorial votes, if that were the case, then we would have far more states in the USA.

This is the second time in the 21st century someone had the galls to insult Darth Vader, the first time being when people alleged that George Lucas compared him to Dubya.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14174025&postcount=52

Oh, he's not the real Darth Vader. TPF is Darth Vader lite. All the whining, but none of the force powers.

3rd time's the charm.

And stop talking to FO. He's clearly showin his ignorance of the US political system, the Australian political system and the world's political system.


Who's talking to him? Talking over him is much easier, since you don't have to stoop so much to reach his level of muck.

Me = Ninja (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14173752&postcount=45).

I realized as much, but since nobody quoted your post... :p

So, essentially what you're saying about McCain is . . .

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31jNaUKeIzL._SL500_AA270_.jpg

Yeah, remind me not to take that job on FO's underground island fortress.

Anyway, "democracy" as it is is mostly just the best system available of a bad bunch -- we can't have an ideal government without it being corrupted due to humans being bastards. So we go with democracy in the hope that the stupid people will stay home on Election Day. The alternative is probably a dictatorship, and the slippery slope version is the oligarchy (wherein, we suppose, the democracy becomes essentially controlled by a small group that can influence the voters, or the politicians, to do its own bidding).

Except the government was still going alright during that time, just wondering where you read this. No they didn't make the right decision but that is something we will never agree on, Rudd hasn't exactly done a great job on the economic side at the moment, his deposit guarantee policy is evident of that as he made it up as he went along.

Can I just ask - when, in Australian history, has a government that has been out of power for over a decade, been absolutely perfect on all fronts from the moment it was elected? Howard was rubbish in his first term, which is why he almost lost to Beazley in '98, but, forgiving though we are, he got a second chance when he should have lost - just as you said Keating should have.

Australian governments, after having been out of power for so long, always underperform in their first term, and they always get a second chance. There is no precident for a government which hasn't been in power for over a decade to perform perfectly, so why do you expect this government to?

Can I just ask - when, in Australian history, has a government that has been out of power for over a decade, been absolutely perfect on all fronts from the moment it was elected? Howard was rubbish in his first term, which is why he almost lost to Beazley in '98, but, forgiving though we are, he got a second chance when he should have lost - just as you said Keating should have.

Australian governments, after having been out of power for so long, always underperform in their first term, and they always get a second chance. There is no precident for a government which hasn't been in power for over a decade to perform perfectly, so why do you expect this government to?

If Howard should have lost he would have. Now I am not saying Rudd should have been perfect and I knew he wouldn't be many people who voted for him expected him to change the world and fix things well the fact of the matter is he hasn't and he never will.

If Howard should have lost he would have. Now I am not saying Rudd should have been perfect and I knew he wouldn't be many people who voted for him expected him to change the world and fix things well the fact of the matter is he hasn't and he never will.

I don't think many people expected him to chance the world and fix things overnight. I think most people voted for him because they absolutely did not want another three years of Howard. No Liberal or Labor government has lost an election after only one term in power. They always get a second chance. I don't see why Howard should have been any different.

I don't think many people expected him to chance the world and fix things overnight. I think most people voted for him because they absolutely did not want another three years of Howard. No Liberal or Labor government has lost an election after only one term in power. They always get a second chance. I don't see why Howard should have been any different.

Because he didn't deserve to lose the 98 election, the party that does get a second chance is labor. They will always win the election after the one they were meant to lose.

But people did have some idea that he would be changing the world and things would get fixed and so far there is nothing that is in the works to fixing Australia (if there was anything wrong with it in the first place) sure he has done a few symbolic moves (sorry, Kyoto) but nothing of substance.

Because he didn't deserve to lose the 98 election, the party that does get a second chance is labor. They will always win the election after the one they were meant to lose.

The majority of the people thought John Howard deserved to lose in 1998 (remember, he lost the popular vote to Beazley), but he was given a second chance.

Historically, no government has lost after just one term in office (with the exception of Whitlam, because of that fuckwit governor general). John Howards first term in office was largely disappointing, and there was a large swing against him, but he was still given a second chance. The facts do not agree with your analysis.

But people did have some idea that he would be changing the world and things would get fixed and so far there is nothing that is in the works to fixing Australia (if there was anything wrong with it in the first place) sure he has done a few symbolic moves (sorry, Kyoto) but nothing of substance.

Yes, but people did not expect it to happen overnight - they would be stupid to think that. Give Rudd a second term, before you can judge him. That is what Australian's have historically done. The first term for any government is always a little slow with a few mistakes as they get used to things, and this is always more prenounced when said government hasn't been in power for over a decade.

The majority of the people thought John Howard deserved to lose in 1998 (remember, he lost the popular vote to Beazley), but he was given a second chance.

Historically, no government has lost after just one term in office (with the exception of Whitlam, because of that fuckwit governor general). John Howards first term in office was largely disappointing, and there was a large swing against him, but he was still given a second chance. The facts do not agree with your analysis.

I will still continue to listen to the analysis of politcal scientists regardless. Despite him losing the popular vote which as you know means nothing in Australia and is meaningless if he had deserved to lose the election he would have. And I knew I was right you are still bitching about Whitlam, of course if Whitlam was as good as you claim he was why wasn't he reelected come the election? Why did he have a massive swing against him?


Yes, but people did not expect it to happen overnight - they would be stupid to think that. Give Rudd a second term, before you can judge him. That is what Australian's have historically done. The first term for any government is always a little slow with a few mistakes as they get used to things, and this is always more prenounced when said government hasn't been in power for over a decade.

I don't expect it to happen at all, but this will not be something we will agree on. We shouldn't give him 6-7 years before judging him the time to judge is at the next election to see if what he has done so far has done anything. He will win the election regardless but that doesn't mean he has done a good job or changed anything.

I will still continue to listen to the analysis of politcal scientists regardless. Despite him losing the popular vote which as you know means nothing in Australia and is meaningless if he had deserved to lose the election he would have. And I knew I was right you are still bitching about Whitlam, of course if Whitlam was as good as you claim he was why wasn't he reelected come the election? Why did he have a massive swing against him?

Largely because the people were deluded into thinking he had done something wrong, which he hadn't. The mentality of "if someone gets fired from their job, it's generally because they have done something wrong". It's actually quite simple to explain the swing against him and doesn't take a genius to work it out.

I don't expect it to happen at all, but this will not be something we will agree on. We shouldn't give him 6-7 years before judging him the time to judge is at the next election to see if what he has done so far has done anything. He will win the election regardless but that doesn't mean he has done a good job or changed anything.

But we gave John Howard a second term when it was clear that his first wasn't up to scratch. So why shouldn't we for Rudd? Howard hadn't done a good job or changed much of anything in his first year, so why do you expect Rudd to?

I ask you to give an example of a government who has just come into power after over a decade of not being in power, who has changed things and kept all their promises and done a lot in their first year in office.

It simply doesn't happen. So why do you expect it to happen now?

Largely because the people were deluded into thinking he had done something wrong, which he hadn't. The mentality of "if someone gets fired from their job, it's generally because they have done something wrong". It's actually quite simple to explain the swing against him and doesn't take a genius to work it out.

Well if he hadn't done something wrong he would never have been dismissed, nothing to do with Kerr he was just doing what any G-G would do.

But we gave John Howard a second term when it was clear that his first wasn't up to scratch. So why shouldn't we for Rudd? Howard hadn't done a good job or changed much of anything in his first year, so why do you expect Rudd to?

I ask you to give an example of a government who has just come into power after over a decade of not being in power, who has changed things and kept all their promises and done a lot in their first year in office.

It simply doesn't happen. So why do you expect it to happen now?

That's my point it isn't going to happen, at all there is no point giving him another 3 years when it isn't going to happen, it would be different if we saw him starting to do something along the lines of what he said he was going to do but we are yet to see anything of substance despite him talking about working hard from the moment he became PM. We have seen a lot of misguided policy and symbolism but nothing decent yet.

Anyway I don't think there would be much point continuing with this, we are never going to budge on our positions you are a dyed in the wool labor voter and I lean towards the liberals though if labor dropped some of their social policies I would consider voting for them.

Perhaps it would be best to agree to disagree till the next election.

Democracy is one of the worst possible systems of government imaginable, especially direct democracy. People are stupid and greedy.

In a true direct democracy everything is a referendum. Everything. There is no congress as we know it today. Can you imagine a world where every day is election day and there is nothing on the ballots but proposed laws? FUCK!

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy..." It's unclear who penned those words but the message is crystal, people's greed will destroy government and the society it administrates.

People are also violent. Democracy is rule by majority and direct democracy takes that to the extreme. It is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. This is the antithesis of freedom. If fighting is sure to result in victory then you must fight. Sons, who said that? And I'd say he knows a little more about fighting than you do pal because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor.

What was I talking about? Oh yeah, democracy. My point is that you should go around strapping rocket launchers and flamethrowers to sheep.

Well if he hadn't done something wrong he would never have been dismissed, nothing to do with Kerr he was just doing what any G-G would do.

He tried to get a reasonable budget passed in the senate, which was stubbornly blocked by the Liberal majority? Truely, he did something monsterously hideous by simply trying to do his job and pass his budget, while the innocent, good, selfless Malcolm Fraser blocked his budget continuously so he could make a case to the governor general that the government was unable to do anything.

Whitlam's only mistake was not calling a double dissolution and completely blaming the Liberal party for not allowing anything to be done.

That's my point it isn't going to happen, at all there is no point giving him another 3 years when it isn't going to happen, it would be different if we saw him starting to do something along the lines of what he said he was going to do but we are yet to see anything of substance despite him talking about working hard from the moment he became PM. We have seen a lot of misguided policy and symbolism but nothing decent yet.

It was the same with John Howard's first three years. We saw very little happening, and no sign of progress. That's how it's always been with governments in their first term. Why do you expect more from this government than what is historically reasonable to expect?

I asked you to give a historical precidence to justify you expecting this much from a government in its first term, and you didn't. I can just conclude that you're upset that Howard lost to Rudd, and you're being a bit more eloquent about it than FO is.

Anyway I don't think there would be much point continuing with this, we are never going to budge on our positions you are a dyed in the wool labor voter and I lean towards the liberals though if labor dropped some of their social policies I would consider voting for them.

Perhaps it would be best to agree to disagree till the next election.

This I can agree on. But then, agreeing with it contradicts the entire point of it, which means I disagree with it, which is the point of it, so I can agree with it, which means I am disagreeing with it, which... [ad infinitum]

He tried to get a reasonable budget passed in the senate, which was stubbornly blocked by the Liberal majority? Truely, he did something monsterously hideous by simply trying to do his job and pass his budget, while the innocent, good, selfless Malcolm Fraser blocked his budget continuously so he could make a case to the governor general that the government was unable to do anything.

Whitlam's only mistake was not calling a double dissolution and completely blaming the Liberal party for not allowing anything to be done.

Reasonable you say? Well maybe to someone on your side. The fact of the matter is that the Senate has the constitutional right to block bills. Now maybe if Whitlam had managed the economy better the opposition wouldn't have done this, of course if Whitlam had done the right thing as he didn't have parliamentary support for supply which he needed to have to remain in power, he should have resigned and called the election. That would have meant he would never have been dismissed and an election would have been held if he was a good as you claim him to be he would have won the election. As he wasn't as good as you claim him to be he did lose the election nothing to do with "dismissal so he can't be good" mentality.

It was the same with John Howard's first three years. We saw very little happening, and no sign of progress. That's how it's always been with governments in their first term. Why do you expect more from this government than what is historically reasonable to expect? Getting support from a government over budgets is something even the current government needed of course the government was taxing us before these higher taxes became legal.

I asked you to give a historical precidence to justify you expecting this much from a government in its first term, and you didn't. I can just conclude that you're upset that Howard lost to Rudd, and you're being a bit more eloquent about it than FO is.

Except you know Rudd claimed during the election how he would be changing the way and starting from the beginning so far he hasn't done anything remotely close and still playing the tabloids. Now if Howard was talking about how he would get all these things done from the start and everything then it would be the same, but Rudd has been talking about changing Australia the moment he became PM and so far we have seen very little not even progress on many of these policies we have only seen symbolism.

I would rather be angry about the current government then still bitching about how labor failed to win the 98 election

This I can agree on. But then, agreeing with it contradicts the entire point of it, which means I disagree with it, which is the point of it, so I can agree with it, which means I am disagreeing with it, which... [ad infinitum]

lol, that's what I should have said to the Minister against Sport when she said that me.

Um, I'm just sticking my oar in here to correct whichever of you said that Whitlam's government served only one term.

There was an election in 1974, called by a double dissolution. It did not succeed in Gough's intention to gain control of the Senate. His second term was short and bloody.

Both sides played incredibly hard, there has been nothing comparable since in the exploration of technically-legal but unprecedented use of powers. Interestingly, Gough's term largely overlapped with that of Richard Nixon ... and the consequences were similar. It was almost a decade before we dared elect someone with half a brain again.

I return you to your regular programming.

anarchy is the way to go

shure, it would be messy (REALLY messy) at first but eventually alliances will form, those alliances will become bigger, they would claim territory and become city-states of sorts and in the long run modern culture would be much like the Greeks if you did something wrong anybody had a right to do something about it and would so if a leader passed a law people didn't like he would have to change it or die and crime rate would be low, because of the harsh discipline system that would form shre these city-states may get mad at each other once in a while but if one is invaded by another country the others would defend them because even thought they may not like each other but national pride would cause them to defend each other

In a true direct democracy everything is a referendum. Everything. There is no congress as we know it today. Can you imagine a world where every day is election day and there is nothing on the ballots but proposed laws? FUCK!


And once again...Switzerland?

Direct Democracy doesn't necessarily mean that no Constitution exists and that the will of the Majority is absolute. Switzerland for example has a Constitution and is a Direct Democracy and is as far as I know not a Tyranny. ;)

oh and according to infoplease (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108012.html)
Government: Federal Republic.

and Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland)
Executive power is exercised by the government and the federal administration. Federal legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland

and it states...
Switzerland the closest state in the world to a direct democracy.
Closest to a direct democracy, not IS a direct Democracy.

Closest to a direct democracy, not IS a direct Democracy.
It is a form of direct Democracy, according both to popular conception, foreign Goverments and and the Constitution: The Swiss Citizens are the highest political Instance. http://www.admin.ch/org/polit/00054/index.html?lang=de
Even the Constitution could, theoretically, be scrapped and the whole Goverment brought down. During World War II some Swiss Nazis even tried to have a Vote on wether or not Switerland as a State should be dissolved and become a part of the third Reich.

It is a form of direct Democracy, according both to popular conception, foreign Goverments and and the Constitution: The Swiss Citizens are the highest political Instance.
All democracy "is a form" of direct democracy.

http://www.admin.ch/org/polit/00054/index.html?lang=de
Even the Constitution could, theoretically, be scrapped and the whole Goverment brought down. During World War II some Swiss Nazis even tried to have a Vote on wether or not Switerland as a State should be dissolved and become a part of the third Reich.
Secondly, even the link (and the countries title) is "Confederation" - still not a 'direct democracy'. A "confederation" is a league or alliance of members who voluntarily remain together but more power remains in the constituent parts than the central government, as opposed to a "federation" where, despite the similar geo-political make-up, more power resides in the central government than in its constituent parts. (Geo-political in the sense that a federation and confederation appear similar in make-up on the surface from the outside looking in)

You would be better off making the argument that county/city councils are the truest form of direct democracy.

Well if anyone dosnt like democracy i put up my hand for being your dictator. Anyone willing to be dictated by me?

And once again...Switzerland?
Shine on that, certain cantons didn't give women the vote until 1990, and their majority party is made of up right wing extremists which abuse the feckless peasants that make up most of the west of the country.

Well if anyone dosnt like democracy i put up my hand for being your dictator. Anyone willing to be dictated by me?

*overthrows in bloody coup d'etat*

Reasonable you say? Well maybe to someone on your side. The fact of the matter is that the Senate has the constitutional right to block bills. Now maybe if Whitlam had managed the economy better the opposition wouldn't have done this, of course if Whitlam had done the right thing as he didn't have parliamentary support for supply which he needed to have to remain in power, he should have resigned and called the election. That would have meant he would never have been dismissed and an election would have been held if he was a good as you claim him to be he would have won the election. As he wasn't as good as you claim him to be he did lose the election nothing to do with "dismissal so he can't be good" mentality.

Now we're just debating opinion. We both agree that Whitlam should have called a double dissolution, but we don't agree on much else.

Except you know Rudd claimed during the election how he would be changing the way and starting from the beginning so far he hasn't done anything remotely close and still playing the tabloids. Now if Howard was talking about how he would get all these things done from the start and everything then it would be the same, but Rudd has been talking about changing Australia the moment he became PM and so far we have seen very little not even progress on many of these policies we have only seen symbolism.

I would rather be angry about the current government then still bitching about how labor failed to win the 98 election

What prime ministerial candidate hasn't claimed they will do big things when trying to get elected? What prime ministerial candidate hasn't told the people what they want to hear to get elected? Howard used scare tactics to make the people afraid into voting for him, Ruddy used hope for change. Two differing political tactics. That's all.

But, again, did any of Rudd's supporters actually believe he would change the world all in one term (with a hostile senate no less)? No. No intelligent person would expect that of him.

Also, I ask you, again, give me an example of an Australian government who has just come into power after over a decade without power, who have been completely compitant and made progress in their first term. I'm guessing you can't, because it simply does not happen. Historically, every government, even Liberal governments, need a shakedown term, to get used to being in control.

So, the fact that you expect so much from Rudd in his first term is historically unjustified. Moreover, your partisanness is showing through quite a bit, in your denial that Liberal governments never fault.

Now we're just debating opinion. We both agree that Whitlam should have called a double dissolution, but we don't agree on much else.

No because Whitlam was a saint and was doing everything right. :rolleyes:
But that is exactly why he was dismissed because he refused to do what was required of him.

What prime ministerial candidate hasn't claimed they will do big things when trying to get elected? What prime ministerial candidate hasn't told the people what they want to hear to get elected? Howard used scare tactics to make the people afraid into voting for him, Ruddy used hope for change. Two differing political tactics. That's all.

But, again, did any of Rudd's supporters actually believe he would change the world all in one term (with a hostile senate no less)? No. No intelligent person would expect that of him.

I am sure many did especially in relation to Workchoices where he and the labor party has backed down on what they cried over leading up to the election. And we have also hit the crux of the issue a lot of voters aren't intelligent they listen to Rudd who says he can do it all and change the world and think that signing a piece of paper is going to stop climate change. Most voters are idiots so yes they would have thought he could do a lot, they are thinking he is doing a lot because he plays tabloid politics and goes through a lot of motions and symbolism. Rudd is a smart man he know how to play the media and get the fools to think he is doing something even though he is doing very little.

Also, I ask you, again, give me an example of an Australian government who has just come into power after over a decade without power, who have been completely compitant and made progress in their first term. I'm guessing you can't, because it simply does not happen. Historically, every government, even Liberal governments, need a shakedown term, to get used to being in control.

So, the fact that you expect so much from Rudd in his first term is historically unjustified. Moreover, your partisanness is showing through quite a bit, in your denial that Liberal governments never fault.

Did I say that they never fault? You are the one who seems to think that Whitlam was doing a good job.

The voters have spoken Blouman - whether you liked their verdict or not doesn't matter. Howard was totally stupid to introduce that IRC legislation. He should have listened to everyone (even Family First thought they had gone too far) and not just to the most feral elements of the business lobby.

Oh! I really hate peopel calling Kevin Rudd, krudd as well. Slightly interesting the first time, after that, repetitive and whingey.
Hands up those who want John Howard back???? Thought so - noone - not even the Liberals.
Looks like Malcolm Turnbull will just have to wait till the next election and in the meantime, to encourage the states to go Liberal - which they probably will....that is the pattern - the ebb and flow of the political currents.

The voters have spoken Blouman - whether you liked their verdict or not doesn't matter. Howard was totally stupid to introduce that IRC legislation. He should have listened to everyone (even Family First thought they had gone too far) and not just to the most feral elements of the business lobby

Am I disagreeing with that? They made a poor choice and believed crap that Rudd said was true, doesn't mean I am saying that he isn't the PM or shouldn't be I am saying they shouldn't have voted him in the first place. Please try and keep up.

Looks like Malcolm Turnbull will just have to wait till the next election and in the meantime, to encourage the states to go Liberal - which they probably will....that is the pattern - the ebb and flow of the political currents.

No he will have to wait till the one after that.

Heh Läppli, you beat me to it. Btw, we ARE doing it right.

Shine on that, certain cantons didn't give women the vote until 1990, and their majority party is made of up right wing extremists which abuse the feckless peasants that make up most of the west of the country.

First of all, there is no majority party. There is simply one largest party, which doesn't even go near 50%.
Second of all... right wing extremists? Childish as hell. I'm assuming you're a left-wing extremist for considering everything right off the centre equivalent to nazism. And for the record, the majority of the SVP supporters live in the EAST of the country, the west of it being left-wing dominated (and peasants are quite well off in Switzerland btw). So, unless you get your facts straight and at least TRY to sound objective, I'm inclined to ignore you.

Well, on the original topic, I don't think there's any reason America should keep the electoral college. Winning the popular vote usually translates to winning the electoral college, but it's an outmoded system. And it makes some voters more important than others.

Right, there are far less than a thousand electorial votes, if that were the case, then we would have far more states in the USA.

False. Electoral votes are based on a states population. If we had 1,000 electoral votes, we'd have a population higher than our 300 million, not more states.

Well, on the original topic, I don't think there's any reason America should keep the electoral college. Winning the popular vote usually translates to winning the electoral college, but it's an outmoded system. And it makes some voters more important than others.

So does a direct election. The purpose of the Electoral College is so that smaller states are not disenfranchised. If we went to a direct election, candidates would only need to visit certain parts of Amercia. The Electoral College system allows for smaller, less populated states, to have an semi-equal say as no one area of the country will decide the election. Don't forget, the Electoral College was a compromise in order to get the Constitution off the ground.

False. Electoral votes are based on a states population. If we had 1,000 electoral votes, we'd have a population higher than our 300 million, not more states.

Not really. A state's electoral college votes are equal to the states number of Representatives and Senators. Since the House of Representatives is fixed in size the number of electors is also fixed.

So does a direct election. The purpose of the Electoral College is so that smaller states are not disenfranchised. If we went to a direct election, candidates would only need to visit certain parts of Amercia. The Electoral College system allows for smaller, less populated states, to have an semi-equal say as no one area of the country will decide the election. Don't forget, the Electoral College was a compromise in order to get the Constitution off the ground.

So a direct election would mean that candidates would have to campaign everywhere there's voters, instead of just in Ohio and Florida. Well, that's just too bad, isn't it? And Wyoming and Rhode Island wouldn't get a disproportionate vote just because people were bickering 200 years ago about the nature of federalism. That's just too bad, too.

So a direct election would mean that candidates would have to campaign everywhere there's voters, instead of just in Ohio and Florida.
nope, they would concentrate to States with the largest population. states with smaller populations would still be ignored.

nope, they would concentrate to States with the largest population. states with smaller populations would still be ignored.

They wouldn't concentrate on states at all. They would try to reach and persuade as many people as possible. Maybe instead of visiting every town in Ohio, they would visit Houston and Kansas City and all the places that are ignored because they're not in an "important" state.

So a direct election would mean that candidates would have to campaign everywhere there's voters, instead of just in Ohio and Florida. Well, that's just too bad, isn't it? And Wyoming and Rhode Island wouldn't get a disproportionate vote just because people were bickering 200 years ago about the nature of federalism. That's just too bad, too.

Ohio and Florida aren't important due to their population, but rather because they're easily turned from one party to the other. New York and California aren't considered big wins for Democratic candidates because they're safe. Even though they're both huge population wise.

Ohio and Florida aren't important due to their population, but rather because they're easily turned from one party to the other. New York and California aren't considered big wins for Democratic candidates because they're safe. Even though they're both huge population wise.

That's part of the problem with the electoral college. It cements the idea that we're an irreversibly divided country. No one bothers to campaign in California and Texas because those states are "safe." But 3.8 million Californians voted for McCain, and 3.5 million Texans voted for Obama. In a direct election, candidates would have to care about those votes as much as the ones in "swing states."

That's part of the problem with the electoral college. It cements the idea that we're an irreversibly divided country. No one bothers to campaign in California and Texas because those states are "safe." But 3.8 million Californians voted for McCain, and 3.5 million Texans voted for Obama. In a direct election, candidates would have to care about those votes as much as the ones in "swing states."I agree that a direct election would give those voters more say, but to say California, Texas, and New York are safe to one party isn't true. Ronald Reagan won all three in both of his elections, Nixon won California in his first and all three in his reelection. Kennedy won Texas, but lost California. Since Clinton they have stayed consistent, but that doesn't mean they can't turn, especially if this current political shift continues.

I agree that a direct election would give those voters more say, but to say California, Texas, and New York are safe to one party isn't true. Ronald Reagan won all three in both of his elections, Nixon won California in his first and all three in his reelection. Kennedy won Texas, but lost California. Since Clinton they have stayed consistent, but that doesn't mean they can't turn, especially if this current political shift continues.

Nixon and Reagan were from California, and Kennedy was before the Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy. But I should say that in any given election, certain states will be regarded as safe and disregarded, and others will be swing states and be inundated with resources. In this election, California, New York, and Texas were all safe states for their respective parties.

I disagree that any of those states are likely to turn today. The GOP is increasingly a regional party. In this election they lost support in every region of the country except the deep South and Appalachia. Unless something really huge happens, I don't see Texas going for the Democrats anytime soon.

They wouldn't concentrate on states at all. They would try to reach and persuade as many people as possible. Maybe instead of visiting every town in Ohio, they would visit Houston and Kansas City and all the places that are ignored because they're not in an "important" state.

nope, they would focus on states with the largest population and leave TV and Radio ads for the rest. by going to 'small town, Ca, USA' they can show the rest of the nation that small towns are important to them. same with going to the captials of those large states.

it's cheaper to focus on a few states than to go visit every state capital (much less all cities with a certain number of people.)