![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Come to think of it.. that's how I feel after every election, regardless of who wins..
Moderators: winston, another_commander, Cody
For the edification of foreign devils, Australian politics is a very simple, two-sided, swinging pendulum affair. When the Liberal/National coalition win they tax the poor to subsidize their rich mates, and when the Labor/Greens alliance win they tax the poor to subsidize their rich mates. (Did I miss any details?)Diziet Sma wrote:Odd.. that's how I feel when the Liberals win..
Come to think of it.. that's how I feel after every election, regardless of who wins..
Insert any political party, any century, any nation.Wildeblood wrote:For the edification of foreign devils,Australianpolitics is a very simple, two-sided, swinging pendulum affair. When theLiberal/National coalitionPARTY 'A' wins they tax the poor to subsidize their rich mates, and when theLabor/Greens alliancePARTY 'B' wins they tax the poor to subsidize their rich mates. (Did I miss any details?)
Only that, by and large, both sides work for the same rich mates.Wildeblood wrote:(Did I miss any details?)
As a business man, the tactic makes sound fiscal sense. Cut out the middle man. Let the money run the country.Alex wrote:As for all countries operating a two party system. See News.
Oh. Look At That.. Trump just went "PARTY" on. Business as usual.
So, rule by idiots is somehow preferable? On the same subject, I have something of a problem with 51% getting to tell the other 49% how to live.Alex wrote:Should be compulsory for all eligable citizens to vote.
That's more than 'something not right'.. that's a sign.. it indicates that most people realise that voting is irrelevant. I'd like to see everyone stop voting. Let's see the bastards justify their rulership if nobody turned out for them.Alex wrote:In the US less than 10% of the eligable population actually vote. Something really not right with that.
A complication we have in Australia is that, thanks to preferential voting, most MPs are elected with 35-45% of voters' support. Here's my proposal:Diziet Sma wrote:So, rule by idiots is somehow preferable? On the same subject, I have something of a problem with 51% getting to tell the other 49% how to live.Alex wrote:Should be compulsory for all eligible citizens to vote.
The 2012 US Presidential election had about 125 million votes, which would be in the 50-60% range. I can believe it's much lower for some of the local elections.Alex wrote:In the US less than 10% of the eligable population actually vote.
Condorcet (which is also a preferential system but with an alternative way of counting) is designed to ensure that if a candidate exists which at least half the voters - likely a different half each time - prefer to every other candidate, that candidate will be elected. (It's never to my knowledge been used for any government elections, and I think in general would be unsuitable for them)Wildeblood wrote:A complication we have in Australia is that, thanks to preferential voting, most MPs are elected with 35-45% of voters' support. Here's my proposal:
They'd make some vague noises about the disappointing level of turnout - we can assume that they and their beneficiaries would still show up to vote - and carry on as before. Intentional measures to suppress turnout from people who don't like them are a well-known feature of some nominal democracies.Diziet Sma wrote:Let's see the bastards justify their rulership if nobody turned out for them.
Compulsory voting is a terrible idea and one I oppose strongly - but you seem to be saying here that it would lead to the electorate making worse decisions?Diziet Sma wrote:So, rule by idiots is somehow preferable?
Sure - but you're a supporter of a political system which requires well over 51% of the population to have the altruism and consideration for their fellow people which would mean that they wouldn't vote to do that even if they could. At that point the formalities of government are largely irrelevant anyway (though the formalities of economics are not).Diziet Sma wrote:On the same subject, I have something of a problem with 51% getting to tell the other 49% how to live.
It does cause the election to produce poor results, because it compels apathetic, ignorant voters, lead only by thought-stopping clichés or hashtags, to participate. In the UK & US those people just stay home.cim wrote:Compulsory voting is a terrible idea and one I oppose strongly - but you seem to be saying here that it would lead to the electorate making worse decisions?Diziet Sma wrote:So, rule by idiots is somehow preferable?
Precisely.Wildeblood wrote:It does cause the election to produce poor results, because it compels apathetic, ignorant voters, lead only by thought-stopping clichés or hashtags, to participate. In the UK & US those people just stay home.cim wrote:Compulsory voting is a terrible idea and one I oppose strongly - but you seem to be saying here that it would lead to the electorate making worse decisions?Diziet Sma wrote:So, rule by idiots is somehow preferable?
Ahh.. but under the system I support, those who disagree with a decision are not obligated to obey it..cim wrote:Sure - but you're a supporter of a political system which requires well over 51% of the population to have the altruism and consideration for their fellow people which would mean that they wouldn't vote to do that even if they could.Diziet Sma wrote:On the same subject, I have something of a problem with 51% getting to tell the other 49% how to live.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...Diziet Sma wrote:Ahh.. but under the system I support, those who disagree with a decision are not obligated to obey it..