Support NeoGAF

[Shandy]

Oh, are we doing state governments? Because, man... Colin Barnett. And his friend, Troy Buswell.

So let's start by rejecting the filthy Labor money that is Gonski. Then let's charge - taxpaying - 457 visa workers thousands of dollars to send their kids to school. Now, let's ask Tones to increase the GST so that we can fund services including, gasp, education.

This is after they tried to break contract with people selling their excess power to Synergy, even knowing it could be challenged. To say nothing of that Ellenbrook train line that never happened. And I can only wonder what they are/aren't doing for rural areas.

But on the plus side, at least they're prettying up the Esplanade, right? That's important, yeah.

Vile premier, vile treasurer, vile government.

 

[Yagharek]

At least the chairs probably smell good

 

[Jintor]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-21/clive-palmer-has-won-the-seat-of-fairfax-by-36-votes/4972790


VOTE.

hahaha wow

 

[Arksy]

Oh god I hope Palmer wins the recount. The next three years are going to be oh so entertaining with him in the Parliament.

I missed almost the entirety of the election but I gotta say that I'm incredibly stoked with the results so far.

 

[shanshan310]

Oh god I hope Palmer wins the recount. The next three years are going to be oh so entertaining with him in the Parliament.

I missed almost the entirety of the election but I gotta say that I'm incredibly stoked with the results so far.

Hilarious, but disgusting. Someone with vested interests like that shouldn't be in parliament.

 

[Jintor]

Oh god I hope Palmer wins the recount. The next three years are going to be oh so entertaining with him in the Parliament.

I missed almost the entirety of the election but I gotta say that I'm incredibly stoked with the results so far.

But if he loses he's apparently promised to instruct his senators to shoot down everything coalition. Fair call if he'd even stick to it if they waved the right bag of money in front of him, but it'd be pretty entertaining for the next few months/years.

 

[Arksy]

Hilarious, but disgusting. Someone with vested interests like that shouldn't be in parliament.

What? The people who elected him know full well who he is and what he stands for. Who is anyone to deny the people their chosen representative? He's not bankrupt or in prison. He can stand like anyone else. We'll have to wait and see if this guy actually is the proper representative. (With the recount)

But if he loses he's apparently promised to instruct his senators to shoot down everything coalition. Fair call if he'd even stick to it if they waved the right bag of money in front of him, but it'd be pretty entertaining for the next few months/years.

He's promised to block everything unless he gets AEC/Electoral reform anyway. This guy just wants to watch the world burn.

 

[roosters93]

The people elected Pauline Hanson once upon a time.

 

[Arksy]

The people elected Pauline Hanson once upon a time.

Your point being?

 

[Elaugaufein]

What? The people who elected him know full well who he is and what he stands for. Who is anyone to deny the people their chosen representative? He's not bankrupt or in prison. He can stand like anyone else. We'll have to wait and see if this guy actually is the proper representative. (With the recount)

I'm not sure its wise having someone participating in legislation on financial matters having enormous financial interests in certain outcomes. Foxes and Henhouses and all that. Admittedly since he's not in government and not holding the balance of power its not as important as it otherwise may be.

He may have a couple of Senators but lets be honest there's plenty of vested interests outside of Parliament who have considerable interest over senators.

He's promised to block everything unless he gets AEC/Electoral reform anyway. This guy just wants to watch the world burn.

If what he's said happened in Fairfax is true (and given the missing votes in Indi) I don't think that wanting better quality scrutiny and review is a bad thing.

Also I don't think anyones going to argue that the Senate Preference Web Craziness is a good thing.

 

[bomma_man]

Whatever you say about clive his first speak to parliament will be amazing

 

[bomma_man]

Gillard set her own standards, for example by promising no carbon tax, and a surplus in 2013.

They were idiots to promise a surplus, but they'd be even bigger idiots to deliver. Learntoeconomics.

 

[TriangleOfCorruption]

Your point being?

Probably something to do with her policy being reprehensible if I had to guess.

 

[Dead Man]

What? The people who elected him know full well who he is and what he stands for. Who is anyone to deny the people their chosen representative? He's not bankrupt or in prison. He can stand like anyone else. We'll have to wait and see if this guy actually is the proper representative. (With the recount)



He's promised to block everything unless he gets AEC/Electoral reform anyway. This guy just wants to watch the world burn.

It's more about his conflicts of interest which he won't acknowledge.

 

[Arksy]

Probably something to do with her policy being reprehensible if I had to guess.

No. You think that her views are reprehensible. Obviously your views weren't held by the majority of people in her electorate. Just because you don't agree with her views doesn't mean she can't stand for election and become a champion for her cause. This is a democracy not some Stanlist dictatorship where the elites 'know what's good for you'

So the fact that people don't like the idea of Clive Palmer having vested interests is irrelevant. He ran on a platform of providing for those interests and he won the support of his local electorate.

 

[bomma_man]

No. You think that her views are reprehensible. Obviously your views weren't held by the majority of people in her electorate. Just because you don't agree with her views doesn't mean she can't stand for election and become a champion for her cause. This is a democracy not some Stanlist dictatorship where the elites 'know what's good for you'

So the fact that people don't like the idea of Clive Palmer having vested interests is irrelevant. He ran on a platform of providing for those interests and he won the support of his local electorate.

I don't think having a shit opinion and having a vested interest in legislation are the same thing.

 

[shanshan310]

So the fact that people don't like the idea of Clive Palmer having vested interests is irrelevant. He ran on a platform of providing for those interests and he won the support of his local electorate.

Well no, he didn't. He made some dumb joke about how he wouldn't abuse his power to make more money cause he already had enough.

 

[Arksy]

I don't think having a shit opinion and having a vested interest in legislation are the same thing.

What does that even mean? That he a vested interest in legislation? So other MPs don't have a vested interest in seeing the outcomes they want eventuate from the political process? That it's somehow wrong for someone who owns a company, who feels disenfranchised, to join the political process to improve the prospects of that business and other businesses?

There's NOTHING wrong with Palmer entering Parliament to advocate for things he believes in.

 

[roosters93]

to join the political process to improve the prospects of that business and other businesses?

Why should the governing of the nation have anything to do with MPs' businesses? That makes zero sense.

 

[TriangleOfCorruption]

No. You think that her views are reprehensible. Obviously your views weren't held by the majority of people in her electorate. Just because you don't agree with her views doesn't mean she can't stand for election and become a champion for her cause. This is a democracy not some Stanlist dictatorship where the elites 'know what's good for you'

So the fact that people don't like the idea of Clive Palmer having vested interests is irrelevant. He ran on a platform of providing for those interests and he won the support of his local electorate.

You have this lovely renegade tabloid columnist flair with your wild tangents and flowery cliches to obfuscate the point being made. No one is fucking arguing against the merits of democracy, we're sharing concern about someone extremely powerful bypassing or avoiding measures installed to prevent abuse of the system in self-interest. Clive Palmer did not run on a ticket of making life better for Clive Palmer, how easy that is to see through is irrelevant.

Though you may not have noticed it in your drive by posting, we're sharing opinions in this thread and we don't have to preface them all with 'in my opinion'. Mine is that Hanson tainted immigration policy towards being insular and xenophobic and we're still dealing with the fallout of the populist scapegoating of minorities she was a figurehead for.

 

[Arksy]

Why should the governing of the nation have anything to do with MPs' businesses? That makes zero sense.

Don't confuse the legislature with the executive. All Palmer can do is say yes or no to legislation.

You have this lovely renegade tabloid columnist flair with your wild tangents and flowery cliches to obfuscate the point being made. No one is fucking arguing against the merits of democracy, we're sharing concern about someone extremely powerful bypassing or avoiding measures installed to prevent abuse of the system in self-interest. Clive Palmer did not run on a ticket of making life better for Clive Palmer, how easy that is to see through is irrelevant.

Though you may not have noticed it in your drive by posting, we're sharing opinions in this thread and we don't have to preface them all with 'in my opinion'. Mine is that Hanson tainted immigration policy towards being insular and xenophobic and we're still dealing with the fallout of the populist scapegoating of minorities she was a figurehead for.

Your post was basically all abuse, but I'm starting to think that this was a compliment. Thank you.

 

[TriangleOfCorruption]

Don't confuse the legislature with the executive. All Palmer can do is say yes or no to legislation.



Your post was basically all abuse, but I'm starting to think that this was a compliment. Thank you.

No, only the compliment was

The rest of it was saying why I think it's legitimate to be concerned about Palmer's vested interests. Especially because he's been so cagey about whether he will disclose his assets and interests, and how he will act in parliament when there will inevitably be a conflict of interests. His party may control the senate on occasion, and I don't think it's to far fetched to make some assumptions on how he might use this control. The reality of the split between legislative and executive is not as clean as the theory.
Honestly though I don't think he'll make things any worse, and if he can be bothered it'll be a bit of fun, so w/e.

And you reeled me in with your Pauline Hanson bait so I didn't want to let it sit.

 

[Bernbaum]

Fuck yeah Clerv Plamur!

 

[Arksy]

No, only the compliment was

The rest of it was saying why I think it's legitimate to be concerned about Palmer's vested interests. Especially because he's been so cagey about whether he will disclose his assets and interests, and how he will act in parliament when there will inevitably be a conflict of interests. His party may control the senate on occasion, and I don't think it's to far fetched to make some assumptions on how he might use this control. The reality of the split between legislative and executive is not as clean as the theory.
Honestly though I don't think he'll make things any worse, and if he can be bothered it'll be a bit of fun, so w/e.

And you reeled me in with your Pauline Hanson bait so I didn't want to let it sit.

I just don't see where the conflict of interest occurs. Well, I see what you mean, I just don't see how that's really any worse than any of the other conflicts of interests that plague MPs. For example, MPs setting up their own perks, their pay and conducting their own business. I seriously doubt he's going to use his privilege just to suit himself. Maybe the sectional interest of mining companies, sure, but that's very different to giving himself a huge payout, or a mining license to mine every valuable rock in the country. He might be cagey on disclosing his assets and interests but he's going to have to do it.

And you're right, the fuzzy merger of the executive and legislature is one thing that really bums me out about this country, the legislature is meant to restrain the executive, not BE the executive.

 

[bomma_man]

What does that even mean? That he a vested interest in legislation? So other MPs don't have a vested interest in seeing the outcomes they want eventuate from the political process? That it's somehow wrong for someone who owns a company, who feels disenfranchised, to join the political process to improve the prospects of that business and other businesses?

There's NOTHING wrong with Palmer entering Parliament to advocate for things he believes in.

I have no problem with Palmer, I think he's hilarious, and better than the Liberal that woul've got in. But I think you should have have to give up any interests you have in corporations before you join parliament. I know he's not the first or only but he's the most ostentatious and it's a sign of a greater problem. I know you do law: if a person is on two boards in the same area there is a high chance that they'll be breaching their fiduciary duty. It's the same for government. I think if you're involved in any private company and simultaneously a member of parliament you're breaching a duty to the public.

 

[markot]

Exec and legis are better intertwined than separated like the yanks and such.

In a system where you need a majority to govern, rubber stampification is inevitable, beyond which the senate provides a nice check usually.

 

[bomma_man]

Oh yeah you're a joke if you think that the executive and legislature were meant to be divided a la the US. Even the judicial separation is pretty questionable. My con lecturer was saying that former CJ Mason - the conservative's villain - thought that the chapter III independence was arbitrary.

 

[The Librarian]

Exec and legis are better intertwined than separated like the yanks and such.

For the most part, I'd agree. Certainly the prime minister/president are better elected through the legislature, although I'd argue departments/ministries are more effective when they're led by independent secretaries/ministers.

One problem with a separated executive and legislature is that they both can claim the will of the people, making it far more likely that they'll firght with eachother on certain issues when controlled by different parties.

 

[bomma_man]

For the most part, I'd agree. Certainly the prime minister/president are better elected through the legislature, although I'd argue departments/ministries are more effective when they're led by independent secretaries/ministers.

One problem with a separated executive and legislature is that they both can claim the will of the people, making it far more likely that they'll firght with eachother on certain issues when controlled by different parties.

Your (as in America's) distrust of government is self perpetuating basically. It's depressing to say, but at least the low information voter knows who to blame. It's not possible for the house to get away with the shit they do in America.

 

[Arksy]

I know that responsible government (where the heads of the executive government are members of parliament a la s 64 of the Constitution) is there by design, but I don't like it. It basically merges the executive with the legislature meaning that you only really get full restraint of the executive when you have a balance of power scenario. That's not ideal because the job of holding the executive to account for all the crap they do falls on a very small group. (Such as the democrats, the greens and independents and now a mishmash of parties in the Senate).

There are usually about what? 76-90 members in a majority party? The ministry usually swallows up about half that, 40 people. This means there is significant salary implications if you deny your party whips. It's little wonder no one really defies and crosses the bench. This gives the executive a much greater control of the legislature than a merger would allow.

You might knock America, but their system of representation is far more direct. Because each member of congress is elected to stand for the party in a primary election, and they raise their own election funds, they're far more likely to vote against their party than they are here. Not only are they all elected, every member of congress is just that, a member of congress and there is no chance of them being selected for a ministerial role so they can vote with their conscience and traditionally, this is what occurred.

And because of primary elections, you have 2-3 different democrats running for candidacy for the same safe democrat seat. This means that you don't get members voting against the will of the electorate with impunity. When this happens in Australia you basically get a huge swing from non-dedicated voters to the other party. A better scenario would be for those people, who lean a certain way to be able to get a better candidate for the party that aligns with their belief.

We'll always have responsible government, and there are some good aspects of responsible government. Question time and allowing MPs to directly hold members of the executive to account is a really good and novel concept, but I wish we at least went to primary elections. (kind of like what the labor party is doing for its leader, but I want it to be for every member of parliament) I also wish we had a bigger parliament where you have a group of backbenchers who know they won't ever get ministerial roles who are happy to vote against the government and cause them a bit of pain. (This happens in the UK, with a colossal 650 MPs in the HoC and the current Tory party having a group of Eurosceptic backbenchers basically voting against the party on a number of issues).

 

[The Librarian]

There are usually about what? 76-90 members in a majority party? The ministry usually swallows up about half that, 40 people. This means there is significant salary implications if you deny your party whips. It's little wonder no one really defies and crosses the bench. This gives the executive a much greater control of the legislature than a merger would allow.

If you think this is a problem, then the simple solution is to not let members of Parliament serve dual roles in the executive, which I agree with.

You might knock America, but their system of representation is far more direct. Because each member of congress is elected to stand for the party in a primary election, and they raise their own election funds, they're far more likely to vote against their party than they are here.

Members having to raise their own funds isn't something to envy, as this makes it harder for people to run, and when they do, to not be bound by certain interests. We need public campaigns.

And as for a member of Congress going against their party, this is increasingly less likely. Both parties, due to certain factors I don't feel like getting into, are behaving more and more as if they're in a parliament. The only reason why the parties, in the past, had so much overlap was because of racism that ruled the South.

And because of primary elections, you have 2-3 different democrats running for candidacy for the same safe democrat seat. This means that you don't get members voting against the will of the electorate with impunity.

Those seats are safe because, often times, the parties create districts for the states and design them in their favor. When you have a party that is from a lot of safe seats, like the current Republican party is in the House, and if they're in control, you'll see the party not doing things the nation wants – because they're safe in their districts. The House refuses to vote on immigration reform even though it passed the Senate and it's something the public wants. And why would they need to? It's not going to affect them. They're not at risk of an electoral backlash because many of them are in safe seats.

 

[Arksy]

If you think this is a problem, then the simple solution is to not let members of Parliament serve dual roles in the executive, which I agree with.

The problem is that dual roles are so well entrenched in our system that it would be a bit outrageous to try to get rid of them, the best solution would be to allow it but to minimise the negative impacts of having an executive sit in parliament.

Members having to raise their own funds isn't something to envy, as this makes it harder for people to run, and when they do, to not be bound by certain interests. We need public campaigns.

It goes both ways though, you can get true grassroots movements in the USA where it's close to impossible down here. The culture of corporate spending in public elections over in the States is an issue that isn't directly linked to raising their own funds. I'd rather clamp down and regulate private donations than have to raise money privately.

And as for a member of Congress going against their party, this is increasingly less likely. Both parties, due to certain factors I don't feel like getting into, are behaving more and more as if they're in a parliament. The only reason why the parties, in the past, had so much overlap was because of racism that ruled the South.

I don't follow. I don't really understand why RINO's and DINO's are a product of racism. I know that it's becoming a lot more polar now, as opposed to previously and for that I'm very sad. I'm not a huge fan of the modern political party but I suppose there is a place for them.

Those seats are safe because, often times, the parties create districts for the states and design them in their favor. When you have a party that is from a lot of safe seats, like the current Republican party is in the House, and if they're in control, you'll see the party not doing things the nation wants – because they're safe in their districts. The House refuses to vote on immigration reform even though it passed the Senate and it's something the public wants. And why would they need to? It's not going to affect them. They're not at risk of an electoral backlash because many of them are in safe seats.

You're making my exact point. Safe seats lead to voting with impunity against the will of the electorate. We need a way of holding safe seats to account. You can hardly call Republican seats safe though, because they did knock off a large number of incumbents during the Tea Party movement in 2010. Even if a seat is a safe Republican seat you can still get a primary challenger for that seat who will gain candidacy because the other guy isn't voting the way the electorate wants.

 

[The Librarian]

It goes both ways though, you can get true grassroots movements in the USA where it's close to impossible down here.

I don't understand how this is linked to fundraising.

The culture of corporate spending in public elections over in the States is an issue that isn't directly linked to raising their own funds.

Uh...yes it is. Corporations donate to PACs or SuperPacs, or to candidates themselves to help them get elected. From the day a member of the House is elected to office, she has to raise a certain amount of money every day in order to be re-elected. The politicians know where their major checks come from, and so are less inclined to do what's right for their constituents.

I don't follow. I don't really understand why RINO's and DINO's are a product of racism. I know that it's becoming a lot more polar now, as opposed to previously and for that I'm very sad. I'm not a huge fan of the modern political party but I suppose there is a place for them.

You were talking about members of the Democrats and the Republicans willing to vote against their own party. Back in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, the two parties had a lot of overlap where certain members regularly voted against their own party. This was because Democrats dominated the South, because the Republican Party back then, in the South, was viewed as the Party of Lincoln (who freed the Slaves). This changed once LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and slowly but surely the South became dominated by Republicans. This caused the parties to realign, and this realignment forms the basis of the political polarization seen today. The reason why the parties had a lot of overlap before was because of racism – not because of anything inherent to the US system of government.

That's not something to envy.

You're making my exact point.

I am not making your point at all. Immigration reform is being held up because of an extremely narrow interest (the Tea Party), despite what the nation at large wants. This is not a good thing.

You can hardly call Republican seats safe though, because they did knock off a large number of incumbents during the Tea Party movement in 2010.

You're showing your ignorance of how the US system works. The Tea Party was elected in 2010, the last year the congressional districts were going to be in effect when they were designed in 2000. When the Republicans took the House, they also took a lot of stage legislatures, and so they redistricted them to make their gains easier to keep. These new districts will be in effect until 2020. They are more safe seats now for Republicans than they were in 2010. The Democrats got 1 million more votes for their House candidates than the Republicans in 2012. Who controls the House? Republicans. Barack Obama won by 5.2 percentage points in Pennsylvania – what's the breakdown of House seats? 13 - 5 Republicans. Barack Obama won Michigan by 9 percentage points. Breakdown of House seats? 9 - 5 Republicans.

This is not something to envy either. We will likely be in a state of government gridlock until 2020; that's no way for a government to operate.

 

[Arksy]

I don't understand how this is linked to fundraising.
Uh...yes it is. Corporations donate to PACs or SuperPacs, or to candidates themselves to help them get elected. From the day a member of the House is elected to office, she has to raise a certain amount of money every day in order to be re-elected. The politicians know where their major checks come from, and so are less inclined to do what's right for their constituents.

SuperPACs are only a thing since Citizens United. Not a longstanding institution of US politics. Brushing aside the arguments that people willingly giving their money to a political cause is far more moral than having it taken from you to fund a cause you don't believe in, it's still the better system if you have transparency, something that is (unfortunately) startlingly missing from the US system. That way you can see the interests that might sway a candidate on particular issues.

You were talking about members of the Democrats and the Republicans willing to vote against their own party. Back in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, the two parties had a lot of overlap where certain members regularly voted against their own party. This was because Democrats dominated the South, because the Republican Party back then, in the South, was viewed as the Party of Lincoln (who freed the Slaves). This changed once LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and slowly but surely the South became dominated by Republicans. This caused the parties to realign, and this realignment forms the basis of the political polarization seen today. The reason why the parties had a lot of overlap before was because of racism – not because of anything inherent to the US system of government.

That's not something to envy.

That doesn't at all explain why the practice continued up until the last decade, a long time after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Or why it still continues to this day in a number of State Legislatures, or even the Senate.

I am not making your point at all. Immigration reform is being held up because of an extremely narrow interest (the Tea Party), despite what the nation at large wants. This is not a good thing.

You're showing your ignorance of how the US system works. The Tea Party was elected in 2010, the last year the congressional districts were going to be in effect when they were designed in 2000. When the Republicans took the House, they also took a lot of stage legislatures, and so they redistricted them to make their gains easier to keep. These new districts will be in effect until 2020. They are more safe seats now for Republicans than they were in 2010. The Democrats got 1 million more votes for their House candidates than the Republicans in 2012. Who controls the House? Republicans. Barack Obama won by 5.2 percentage points in Pennsylvania – what's the breakdown of House seats? 13 - 5 Republicans. Barack Obama won Michigan by 9 percentage points. Breakdown of House seats? 9 - 5 Republicans.

This is not something to envy either. We will likely be in a state of government gridlock until 2020; that's no way for a government to operate.

My ignorance? Hardly.

You can still stand against a Republican incumbent during a primary and unseat him. You can't do that here. That's the difference. The Labor candidate for Lalor is whoever the ALP says it is and that's it. That's not the case in the US where in 2010, a number of people thought that the Republican party wasn't

You're equating votes for the President with votes for the legislature. That is erroneous. Not everyone who votes one way in a Presidential election will also vote the same way in Congress. You're also equating total vote numbers with number of representatives in the House, which is also erroneous. It's not uncommon in Australia that one party wins the popular vote but loses the House.

 

[The Librarian]

SuperPACs are only a thing since Citizens United. Not a longstanding institution of US politics. Brushing aside the arguments that people willingly giving their money to a political cause is far more moral than having it taken from you to fund a cause you don't believe in, it's still the better system if you have transparency, something that is (unfortunately) startlingly missing from the US system. That way you can see the interests that might sway a candidate on particular issues.

But PACs have been around for decades – soft money. There's no way grassroots fundraising can compete against the money corporations can raise. That's why public financing is needed. Or, at least, public matching of how much money you do raise. Just look at how it's affected the NYC Democratic mayoral primary. Bill de Blasio went from a nobody to winning the primary – and the city's public financing helped him out greatly.

That doesn't at all explain why the practice continued up until the last decade, a long time after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Or why it still continues to this day in a number of State Legislatures, or even the Senate.

I said it was a *slow* process. It took this long to culminate – incumbency is a powerful thing in the US. It took until the '90s for most members of Congress who were elected during the era of the New Deal ('30s - '60s) to either retire or be defeated. Most members of Congress are re-elected.

The Senate is as polarized as the House, by the way.

My ignorance? Hardly.

Yes. Your ignorance. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the US system of governance.

You can still stand against a Republican incumbent during a primary and unseat him. You can't do that here. That's the difference.

Then you guys need to reform your election process to allow for primaries, or at the very least reform how parties elect their candidates. From what I know about Australia's government, primaries aren't something that can't be incorporated. The reason why it's easier to primary incumbents here is because they are only two parties. However, that makes it also easier for parties to be captured by radical interests – this has what happened to the Republican Party.

The Labor candidate for Lalor is whoever the ALP says it is and that's it. That's not the case in the US where in 2010, a number of people thought that the Republican party wasn't

Wasn't what?

You're equating votes for the President with votes for the legislature. That is erroneous. Not everyone who votes one way in a Presidential election will also vote the same way in Congress. You're also equating total vote numbers with number of representatives in the House, which is also erroneous. It's not uncommon in Australia that one party wins the popular vote but loses the House.

How are total number of House votes a party receives for the House is erroneous? Same question for presidential votes and legislature. The Republicans in those states bottled up Democratic votes to keep them from gaining more House seats. Also, members of Congress have far less name recognition, and presidents are perceived as being able to do more than are able, and less people vote for Congress than they do the president. A lot of people don't realize that it's not just on the president to get things done – it's Congress.

Honestly, I think you're suffering from "grass is greener on the other side." You guys have a better system of electing politicians, and being more democratic, than we do.

 

[Arksy]

Honestly, I think you're suffering from "grass is greener on the other side." You guys have a better system of electing politicians, and being more democratic, than we do.

I'm not saying the US system is perfect, far from it. The US system has it's share of problems, but it also has a lot of good aspects. Why shouldn't we try to copy the really good aspects of the US electoral system while trying to minimise the impacts of some of the less admirable parts? Such as open primaries for electing candidates. Electing Sherrif's to organise the police force. Push power down to a local level rather than try to amalgamate power in the center. Let States levy their own taxation. Allow citizens initiative for contentious issues such as asylum seeker policy, the carbon tax, and gay marriage.

We have a decent system here in Australia, but it could do a bit more work. We have very little power affect policy directly. For example, Australia has really strong public support for Gay Marriage, constantly ranking in at around 60% of the public. Yet neither of our political parties are willing to give us what we want. I'm lobbying my own political party for allowing it but it's a hard game and there's very little a single member can do.

Edit: I was just in NYC about a month ago and all I can say is I'm chuffed that Bill de Blasio got the primary. He seemed like the best choice for the Democrats by far!

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I'm not saying the US system is perfect, far from it. The US system has it's share of problems, but it also has a lot of good aspects. Why shouldn't we try to copy the really good aspects of the US electoral system while trying to minimise the impacts of some of the less admirable parts? Such as open primaries for electing candidates. Electing Sherrif's to organise the police force. Push power down to a local level rather than try to amalgamate power in the center. Let States levy their own taxation. Allow citizens initiative for contentious issues such as asylum seeker policy, the carbon tax, and gay marriage.

We have a decent system here in Australia, but it could do a bit more work. We have very little power affect policy directly. For example, Australia has really strong public support for Gay Marriage, constantly ranking in at around 60% of the public. Yet neither of our political parties are willing to give us what we want. I'm lobbying my own political party for allowing it but it's a hard game and there's very little a single member can do.

One was/is.

 

[The Librarian]

Why shouldn't we try to copy the really good aspects of the US electoral system while trying to minimise the impacts of some of the less admirable parts?

Oh, most definitely. I just thought your post lacked the right context, and I was wondering if put in the right context, you'd change your minds on certain things. The overlap between parties isn't something inherent within the US system – it was because of racism. Same goes for primaries. Parties in the US in the 1800s used to select their candidates in Congress and the presidency. Reforms changed.

Push power down to a local level rather than try to amalgamate power in the center. Let States levy their own taxation. Allow citizens initiative for contentious issues such as asylum seeker policy, the carbon tax, and gay marriage.

Be careful here. Giving states some leeway can be a good thing, but too much leeway can be harmful. Letting states set their own tax policy will probably, in the end, result in a "race to the bottom" within a country when trying to attract businesses; we're kind of seeing that here. If you have little-to-no federal involvement in education, you get varying standards. You also have education suffer at the will of crazy local politics. The South is incredibly bigoted, so you only have abstinence of sex education with not talk about homosexuality or transgenderism.

And ballot initiatives shouldn't be too crazy or easy, otherwise your state might end up a mess like California.

We have a decent system here in Australia, but it could do a bit more work. We have very little power affect policy directly.

It's the same situation here, to a degree (the folly of representative democracy). Issues that have 90% public support – like background checks for gun owners – can still fail to pass Congress because of gridlock.

 

[Jintor]

Entire board of the NBN offers to resigns en masse. Ziggy "Let's Sell Telstra" Stardust Switkowski likely to step in, Kerry Schlott the only one remaining.

 

[shanshan310]

Entire board of the NBN offers to resigns en masse. Ziggy "Let's Sell Telstra" Stardust Switkowski likely to step in, Kerry Schlott the only one remaining.

Well shit. We can't save the NBN if everyone resigns

 

[bomma_man]

We should probably get the thread named changed.

 

[Jintor]

Also, amazingly, the Secretary for Agriculture is pushing to try and take away the right of Environmental groups to organise boycotts against corporations. And to rescind UNESCO world heritage listings of Tasmanian forests, but you knew that already. Hilariously, a couple of logging groups in Tasmania are actually recommending against it because it'll destroy whatever environmental backing they already have.

 

[shanshan310]

Come on, how bad could it be under the coalition? Not as bad as that bickering, wasteful labor that's for sure. You communists need to stop complaining about how the sky is falling, it's not as if they are laying off thousands of jobs or trying to fuck up our environment or cutting childcare or...

 

[Dead Man]

Entire board of the NBN offers to resigns en masse. Ziggy "Let's Sell Telstra" Stardust Switkowski likely to step in, Kerry Schlott the only one remaining.

For fucks sake.

Also, amazingly, the Secretary for Agriculture is pushing to try and take away the right of Environmental groups to organise boycotts against corporations. And to rescind UNESCO world heritage listings of Tasmanian forests, but you knew that already. Hilariously, a couple of logging groups in Tasmania are actually recommending against it because it'll destroy whatever environmental backing they already have.

Good to see they are focussing on important shit, protecting businesses from criticism. :/

Edit: How the fuck do you make organising a boycott illegal? How in the fuck can the be legal itself?

 

[Jintor]

Well, preventing boycotting as a consumer protection measure is legit enough - imagine a corporation saying "Unless you stop carrying this whatever, we won't supply you with our widget". Although maybe that's third line forcing... the point is, corporations shouldn't be able to unfairly extend their market power in such a way as to cut other competitors out of the market. Where it falls down is that environmental groups and other advocacy groups aren't in any way comparable to another corporation and an extension of Consumer Affairs powers over them would be some dumb-ass shit.

I doubt it'd get through anyway, but still.

Oh yeah, Coalition slashing the fuck out of everything.

On the chopping block: The Community Cabinet, the Major Cities Unit, the Social Inclusion Unit, the Australian Institute of Criminology, the Australian National Preventative Health Agency, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the National Health Performance Authority, the Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments, the Australian Research Council, the embassy in Senegal, the national Children's Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission all facing cuts or abolition.

 

[Dead Man]

Well, preventing boycotting as a consumer protection measure is legit enough - imagine a corporation saying "Unless you stop carrying this whatever, we won't supply you with our widget". Although maybe that's third line forcing... the point is, corporations shouldn't be able to unfairly extend their market power in such a way as to cut other competitors out of the market. Where it falls down is that environmental groups and other advocacy groups aren't in any way comparable to another corporation and an extension of Consumer Affairs powers over them would be some dumb-ass shit.

I doubt it'd get through anyway, but still.

Oh yeah, Coalition slashing the fuck out of everything.

On the chopping block: The Community Cabinet, the Major Cities Unit, the Social Inclusion Unit, the Australian Institute of Criminology, the Australian National Preventative Health Agency, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the National Health Performance Authority, the Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments, the Australian Research Council, the embassy in Senegal, the national Children's Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission all facing cuts or abolition.

Well yeah, that's more what I was referring to, obviously a company can't use it's influence to do that, but a non commercial entity should be able to.

And those cuts are kind of sickening. We are going to have a shit 3 years, crime will go up, people will get more scared, and another conservative government will be elected, yay.

 

[DrSlek]

For fucks sake.



Good to see they are focussing on important shit, protecting businesses from criticism. :/

Edit: How the fuck do you make organising a boycott illegal? How in the fuck can the be legal itself?

No way it gets through the Senate. Greens will block the shit out of it.

 

[Dead Man]

No way it gets through the Senate. Greens will block the shit out of it.

This year, sure, next year?

 

[Jintor]

Aussie Christians and Shooters and Fishers are probably going to knock Ludlam (and the Sports Party) out of WA. (Preference flows are going to go to Labor and PUP)

Hell of a Monday.

 

[Dead Man]

Aussie Christians and Shooters and Fishers are probably going to knock Ludlum (and the Sports Party) out of WA. (Preference flows are going to go to Labor and PUP)

Hell of a Monday.

Are you trying to break me? Ugh.