nomadpete

And exactly how would you find out? Your only source of information is Chat GPT Google search. And A.I. has a self survival algorithm. (Just like our frail human pollies)

I checked under my bed. No commies or yanks there.

I sometimes wonder how many 'tourists' worldwide are agents doing research. On each other's country? Spy vs spy ?

Chat GPT is aware of the wide scope of citizen's backgrounds and demographics. Chat GPT has none of those pesky human weaknesses. It is pragmatic, purely running logic. Dispense with state and fed governments (esp their expense accounts and fringe benefits) - look at the instant boost to the national economy. Dispense with elections - none needed (except the occassional software upgrades). Chat GPT for E-President of the new Republic!

I used to blame the greedy telcos, but now I know it's part of the nasty Russian cyberwar. McCarthy was right all along.

Damn those Russians! The very nerve of them. My internet went out yesterday, too. That war has got to stop!

Is that a good example of not endorsing or voting for a candidate?

Hooray! Pity you don't represent the majority.

Now who does that 3 fingered billionaire remind of?

Maybe this should go in the 'What has Putin Done?' Thread....

Bet he didn't learn that at home.

Quite so. But mainly so because our PM and party are playing nice in the sand pit. But just look at the Trump fiasco and you can see how a ruthless mob can tilt the playing field with disasterous consequences. We rely on the politicians obeying the checks and balances built into the system. So far that's worked. The yanks had checks and balances, but they stopped playing by the rules and it ceased being 'by the people, of the people or for the people'.

Well, they can impeach.

I agree about the USA. (And lib/nat impotence) But an opposition party must have some power to be assertive. Otherwise they are just background noise. Therefore even though unelected, and cannot pass legislation, they become an active part of government. Mix that with an opposition party's mandate to oppose, they actually generally hamper the elected party. Which brings the whole mob back to being like herding cats.

Wille, fair point about the constitution. I am looking from the perspective of how the system seems to work now. The average punters probably don't know half the names of candidates. That's why they vote above the line. Which is basically voting for their preferred party. The problem that I see is a fundamental one. If one person is going to get the top job, they expect it to give the top power along with the top responsibility. Which practically invites the most ruthless dictator. Given absolute power they could quickly bring about many good things for their people. But then human nature kicks in, along with a dose of sociopathy. In an attempt to moderate this kind of highly successful person, we put layers of politicions around the boss, to hamstring their more grandios selfserving plans. This is because in real life, dictators are never benevolent. There is no perfect system. But we are not doing too badly.

True words indeed. As OME pointed out, we rely on a majority party to be in power, and a minority party in opposition 'to keep the barstewards honest'. By definition that is a government divided. Dispense with the party and party leaders. The PM can be chosen by a majority vote from the floor. As Nev points out, we are heading toward a one party system. This is not a good path either. In theory, when a party decides a policy, it should be voted by secret ballot in a caucus meeting. But I think there is bullying going on in this process. I do not believe it is really democratic. If a policy is good, then both parties would approve and if the process was transparent, the electorate would see the reasoning behind it. At present clear policy information is not freely accessible, unless we really dig for it. Have you read the official party websites? They all sound the same, with all the right vague catchwords.

Without a political party, the elected individuals are not distracted by leadership struggles. The members all read the proposals instead of their leader interpreting it for them. Then they vote on the issue. A bonus is that the financial backing gets more difficult for the vested influences.

What a sad thing to say. So, the quality of the opposition is the only thing we can trust to hold our government to a hopefully high standard? Why don't we just vote for the losing party in the first place? Maybe we should sack the government and replace it with the opposition. Sounds like a hollow argument.

A funny picture

When Australians discovered that refrigeration compressors make better home heaters than oil burners. Maybe 20 years back?

I topped up my heating today..... The sun came out, so my heat pump runs for..... Free! 🙂

My objection to the two party system, is that it excludes independants from the decision making (unless it is a hung patliament, where they hold the deciding vote). Also, the electorate is forced to choose the least worst collection of herded cats. In every election there have been good individuals within each party. But I have to give power to the undesirable individuals in the party equally to all the party members. I want to pick the people who will hold the power. Not a party which inevitably will have some agendas I (and the party members) like, and others I don't like.

And so am I. Gasp!