Oolite Bulletins

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..

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..

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?)

Some wag (not me) just tweeted this helpful diagram:

Wildeblood wrote:

For the edification of foreign devils, Australian politics is a very simple, two-sided, swinging pendulum affair. When the Liberal/National coalition PARTY 'A' wins they tax the poor to subsidize their rich mates, and when the Labor/Greens alliance PARTY 'B' wins they tax the poor to subsidize their rich mates. (Did I miss any details?)

Insert any political party, any century, any nation.

Wildeblood wrote:

(Did I miss any details?)

Only that, by and large, both sides work for the same rich mates.

"The more things change the more they stay the same."

I just read through 7 pages of interesting ideas on democracy, none of which actually mentioned that democracy as actual democracy has never ever actually existed. Only to get to what anyone who has watch any news programme for more that a few years would have realised;
Change the date and names involved, news is the same as last years or decades for that matter.
I stopped watching the news 12 years ago.
A few weeks ago I got a bit bored and thought what the hell let's have a look..
Accessed BBC World, CNN, PN and RTV.
Crocodile Dundee moment.
When he switches on tv in NY and sees Lucy in B/W "Yup that's what I remember"
Na, Really, 12 years without bothering and then, Yup that's the same just different names.
For a different point, I followed the same story on just they four. What a difference on what is actually reported on the same story.
Funny enough the most unbiased for western news is RTV (Russian TV) Just don't ask for anything about russia on it.

As for democracy. Educate the masses. Free access to internet is not a bad start. Would imagine it would be difficult to be a tyrant if everyone knew what you were upto. As for GlobalCorp. Ooo, can see a huge rise in Hackers Inc. stock.
Ah the smell of democratic capatilisim in the morning.
Thanks posters for a very interesting read.

Back to the main point, 'voting idiots'
Should be compulsory for all eligable citizens to vote. In the US less than 10% of the eligable population actually vote. Something really not right with that.

As for all countries opperating a two party system. See News.
Oh. Look At That.. Trump just went "PARTY" on. Business as usuall.

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.

As a business man, the tactic makes sound fiscal sense. Cut out the middle man. Let the money run the country.

What could possibly go wrong?

Ye.. What could possibly go wrong with that.
Really?

Alex wrote:

Should be compulsory for all eligable citizens to vote.

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:

In the US less than 10% of the eligable population actually vote. Something really not right with that.

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.

Diziet Sma wrote:

Alex wrote:

Should be compulsory for all eligible citizens to vote.

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.

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:

Keep compulsory voting.
Abolish preferential voting.
If a candidate gets > 50% he's* the elected representative.
If no candidate gets > 50%, leave that seat vacant until the next election.
I see no reason why a representative who represents fewer than 50% of voters is better than no representative at all.

* Yes, yes, feminists.

Alex wrote:

In the US less than 10% of the eligable population actually 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.

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:

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)

Diziet Sma wrote:

Let's see the bastards justify their rulership if nobody turned out for them.

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.

Conversely, if you could get "everyone" or at least near enough to not vote, the population would already have made up its mind to ignore the government, and what they said would be entirely irrelevant.

Diziet Sma wrote:

So, rule by idiots is somehow preferable?

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:

On the same subject, I have something of a problem with 51% getting to tell the other 49% how to live.

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).

cim wrote:

Diziet Sma wrote:

So, rule by idiots is somehow preferable?

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?

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.

But why would you oppose compulsory voting? Without it you get the perverse results you get in your country, with MPs elected by a tiny minority of eligible voters.

The problem is not compelling everyone on the electoral roll to vote. The problem is having too many people on the roll. E.g. in Australia people who can't speak a word of English are eligible to vote. Prisoners in gaol are eligible to vote. There's the first two categories that should be disenfranchised.

Wildeblood wrote:

cim wrote:

Diziet Sma wrote:

So, rule by idiots is somehow preferable?

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?

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.

Precisely.

cim wrote:

Diziet Sma wrote:

On the same subject, I have something of a problem with 51% getting to tell the other 49% how to live.

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.

Ahh.. but under the system I support, those who disagree with a decision are not obligated to obey it..

Diziet Sma wrote:

Ahh.. but under the system I support, those who disagree with a decision are not obligated to obey it..

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Sarah in the Senate reacts to my proposal to limit senators to a single term of office...