Atheist knowledge

[facthunter]

Animal Farm. All men are equal, but some are more equal than others. Who decides who is more entitled to extra voting power? Why bother? Go straight to Dictator. Do not pass GO Do not collect $200. Pay Dictator an "up you" tax. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Who decides who is more entitled to extra voting power?

Sadly in Oz one person has one vote and must vote - while some think that's fair, think of all those who vote because they vote thinking they will get more dole or the single woman who will get more money for her 6th child or for lower rego on V8's, etc. - yes, a previous 15 years living in Logan has tainted me.

 

Sadly the votes are not distributed fairly for the improvement of the country and Governments get into power often on ridiculous mandates.

 

Adopting the American vote where it's a choice to vote or not, or the Chinese system which is truly democratic, would see improvements.

 

 

[octave]

or the Chinese system which is truly democratic, would see improvements.

Can you explain how democracy works in China? (not trying to be a smart arse, just don't really know how it works)

 

 

[Yenn]

Voting is compulsory, but you don't have to vote. you have to get your name ticke off. my son tells me that he once put his voting paper straight into the ballot box and the returning officer told him he could'nt do that. But he just did.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Can you explain how democracy works in China? (not trying to be a smart ****, just don't really know how it works)

Sure, basically the same as your local sporting club but obviously it's the Communist Party of China (CPC).

 

Every Village has a branch, every City has multiple branches depending on divisions and size of course.

 

You are free to be a member of the CPC or not. If not you can't vote. Note that there are clear and defined faction Parties within the CPC as well.

 

Each year, each local branch has elections choosing from 5 Candidates. There are 4 rounds of votes, the person with the lowest count is eliminated each time and the vote restarts til the last 2 and a majority winner.

 

The throughout the year, local issues are discussed and voted upon, the local Head Official takes those results to the City meeting for discussions and votes on the same and larger issues.

 

And so it goes on, the City Heads then go to District discussions and vote, District go to Provincial and of course, all finally to the Annual National Congress to vote on matters and law changes. Totals about 3000 Officials from about 40 Provinces and Minority groups and other entities.

 

Congress runs for 2 weeks and is televised live on TV the entire time - and quite popular with the public.

 

China is democratically guided from the bottom up, how else do you know what is going on with 1.3 billion people and keep them happy.

 

 

[Marty_d]

It's not without reason that a person with considerable and successful business, accounting and accountability experience would and should have more say in how a country is run than Steve who left school at 15 and lays bathroom tiles.

Well actually, it is. People are complex creatures and a skillset in business, accounting and accountability is just one part of their makeup. One could say that this particular skillset was also essential in running a death camp in Nazi Germany but does not necessarily mean that the person is better qualified than anyone else to guide the future direction of the country. Whereas Steve the bathroom tiler may be an untutored philosopher and, as he slaps down the tiles, lets his mind wander over issues of education, justice and social cohesion.

 

The Simpsons episode of "Homer's Car" is an excellent analogy of this - and indicative of what would happen if the Green's got into power

Loved that episode, however if you're going to go down that road, the metaphor would seem to suggest that the only people capable of voting "properly"are politicians...?

 

 

[facthunter]

Democracy is the worst system there is.( except for all the others) (W Churchill.) The basis of it is one person one vote. It is based on people being informed what is going on. (Something WE fail miserably at in this country) Being forced to vote originally was directed at stopping the boss from allowing you to vote. People who don't bother to exercise their right to vote tread on the graves of innumerable people who have given everything, including their lives, to try to get the right to vote without penalty or fear for the candidate of their choice. Cherish what you have and be thankful for what you have in this country. If you think it's $#!t tell me of one better. I'm not talking of quasi patriotism. Just the reality of what we have. Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

Democracy is the worst system there is.( except for all the others) (W Churchill.) The basis of it is one person one vote. It is based on people being informed what is going on. (Something WE fail miserably at in this country) Being forced to vote originally was directed at stopping the boss from allowing you to vote. People who don't bother to exercise their right to vote tread on the graves of innumerable people who have given everything, including their lives, to try to get the right to vote without penalty or fear for the candidate of their choice. Cherish what you have and be thankful for what you have in this country. If you think it's $#!t tell me of one better. Nev

Too right. Democracy, while not perfect by any means, is still worth keeping because other alternatives are worse. It has been a hard-won freedom that should never be given away to Inquisitions, Sharia Courts, dictatorships or oligarchies.

 

The Westminster style of democracy, as we have it in Australia, is pretty much the best version of democracy available because its basis is a constitutional monarchy. This is based on a two important foundations:

 

1. The head of state (the Queen, represented by the Governor General) is a-political ...this means non-political. He or she is called upon to be an impartial umpire should the need ever arise. Even if the need doesn't arise, just to have a neutral presence is very important. We should resist the clamour to have the head of state elected.

 

2. The Executive is part of the majority of the MPs that "form government" after an election. Parliament (all MPs) make up the Legislative arm of government of which a proportion make the Executive. This overlap system is vital for a well functioning system of democracy. It is important that it remains this way. In the USA the Executive (the President and all his/her APPOINTED people ...not elected) is separate from the elected MPs. This leads to the situation that the foreign minister ("secretary of state"), defence minister, etc, are simply appointed people, personally chosen by an "elected" (well, in a very roundabout way via the Electoral College system but that is another story) president. This is really very unsatisfactory as this kind of Executive reduces accountability towards the electorate ...and has a tendency towards dictatorship. We should always resist having an "elected head of state" for this this reason because, no matter what people say, an elected head of state actually reduces democratic accountability. It also unnecessarily politicises the office for no good reason.

 

There is also the bicameral system that all jurisdictions in Australia have with the exception of Queensland. This also protects the voters to some degree.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The Westminster style of democracy, as we have it in Australia, is pretty much the best version of democracy available

Having Government put in charge based on what will least offend the majority rather than what the majority want is not democracy. It may be a safer system than some others leaning towards Socialism, but who cares when the "safer choice" Government gets into power and finds they can't get their major policies through the Senate anyway.

 

Try explaining our Preference system to a Foreigner one day ... three or four times.

 

... and what a joke 3 year terms are, first year spent telling the public what a mess the previous Party left, one year of running the country while fighting the Opposition like high school children and the 3rd year trying to get themselves re-elected - usually with a Leadership challenge.

 

What a system.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Hmmm, " flood" is a bit of an exageration.

Yeah, nah ....... but you stay in denial while enjoying all that Governments and Corporations can offer, more than most.

 

http://www.scotthendry.com/saving%20democracy.htm

 

That, and the fact that we've been invading and bombing that part of the world for decades without any improvement (and in fact the situation has got markedly worse) should be enough evidence that doing more of the same is not the answer. This is why I know that the politicians are not actually trying to solve the problems, they are only doing what people who subscribe to simplistic solutions are clamouring for, but mainly the pollies are doing the bidding of those who profit from the conflict.

 

Phil:

All the good, bad and ugly analysis is great fodder for the newspapers and to keep the mug punters (you and I) off the REAL game. The real game is MONEY. It is all driven by profits for the armaments and oil industries. Those industries contribute just enough funds to just keep their tame politicians in power. Those industries have the financial wherewithall to bankroll their favorite pollites to an extent that their opponent parties would die on the vine, but they won't. The phrase "Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" pretty well sums up why.

 

Also agree. What is really telling though is that we only get to vote for the candidates the party (read the financial backers of the party) put up for election via the pre-selection process. And then, those with the most campaign funds can afford the most advertising and promotion and can afford the highest-priced PR firms.

A really good example of the above is the American Presidential race. On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders is widely acknowledged as the one who would most benefit the nation, but Hillary Clinton is attracting the Big Money because she is more "corporate-friendly" (particularly Wall Street) than Sanders.

 

On the Republican side, The Koch brothers have pledged that they will spend up to US$960 Million to elect a "friendly" Republican in the 2016 election. Yes, you read that right. They plan to spend almost a Billion dollars to install a cooperative US president. If you don't believe that they will expect quid-pro-quo from their President, then you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

 

The corporates are not quite so embedded here in Oz as in the US, but there have been attempts by the pollies (particularly the Conservatives) to "fix" that little oversight. Here in Qld, the LNP lifted the undisclosable donations limit from $1,000 to $12,500 in a single jump. Fortunately Anna P put it back to $1,000, but in my book, that's still $1,000 too much.To paraphrase Paul Keating "Never get between a politician and a bucket of money."

 

Hmmm, " flood" is a bit of an exageration.

I thought I had made it fairly clear, but specifically: political donations are a form of corruption of the democratic system. Democracy is defined as "Government by the people FOR the people." Which part of that statement reads as "For the profits of the corporations"?

 

Yes it does go past my mind for a fleeting moment, and then I realise that it's naive to believe that anyone, "even rich corporate bosses" gives away money to politicians for "the best interests for their country"! Whether they are street sweepers or mega-rich oil billionaires, people spend a lot of their lives acquiring their money and trying to retain as much of it as they can. Thinking that they are willing to give it away for other than self-interest (somewhere down the line) is pretty naive.

 

Does it ever go past your mind even for a fleeting moment (I did try to resist using similar provocative language as yours, but I failed) that for reasons similar to why we have a doctrine of separation of Church and State, and Separation of Judiciary and State, that we need to have a separation of Corporate and State? Corporations are designed for one purpose only, to make as much profit as possible. Considerations of national interest do not factor into Corporate function AT ALL. The role of Government is to look after the national interests and part of that role is to ensure that the citizens and organisations in the country do not act in ways that damage the nation. That's why government is empowered by the nation to create laws. When the legislation function of the country becomes obligated to profit driven organisations (or individuals), we have a problem.

 

So my point simply is

 

We need to ban ALL political donations and any funds required by politicians for campaigning should be sourced from public funds and STRICTLY limited with NO exceptions or "special cases". Political donations carry obligations and are a corruption of the democratic system.

[cscotthendry]

Bex:

 

Your statements regarding CEOs being better qualified to run the country than Steve the tiler stand in direct contradiction to your spruiking of Chinese "Democracy".

 

And you speak of being in denial!

 

Edit:

 

And although you seem to quote many of the points I made, you don't rebut them or address them specifically.

 

 

[hihosland]

The Westminster system as practiced in Westminster is not burdened with ballot papers requiring 50 or more candidates to be listed in preference order.

 

I see merit in a preferential voting system that limited the preferences to no more than three

 

 

[cscotthendry]

The Westminster system as practiced in Westminster is not burdened with ballot papers requiring 50 or more candidates to be listed in preference order.I see merit in a preferential voting system that limited the preferences to no more than three

I agree whith that except I would see the number of required preferences at five or six. With only three, the system would entrench the Lib-Lab-Green triumvirate and exclude any possibility of independents getting elected. These days, the indies seem to be more representative of community values than any of the party apparatchicks.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I agree whith that except I would see the number of required preferences at five or six. With only three, the system would entrench the Lib-Lab-Green triumvirate and exclude any possibility of independents getting elected. These days, the indies seem to be more representative of community values than any of the party apparatchicks.

I think that most voters should have no trouble choosing six, for the reasons you outlined.

 

Back in 1999 there I voted in a massive New South Wales upper house ballot paper the size of a table cloth. This became known as the Tablecloth Election. It took me well over half an hour to rank all of the 264 candidates. If you get even one number wrong the whole ballot is declared informal. I would have hated to be one of the people counting the votes: what a boring job that would have been!

 

 

[hihosland]

When they introduced the "above the line" vote system

 

I, out of sheer perversity, continued to rank every candidate

 

 

[facthunter]

I didn't follow any card and voted for the lot. I did a lot of research and even then it took about 20 minutes. The "fiddling" with preferences was nothing short of corruption. I'm referring to the Senate and I am glad we have one. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Voting "above the line" sure simplified things, but I'm amazed there has been no High Court challenge to it. The Constitution says that our reps will be "directly elected by the people"; by voting "above the line" we empower each individual party to select and prioritise our representatives.

 

 

[eightyknots]

When they introduced the "above the line" vote systemI, out of sheer perversity, continued to rank every candidate

Me too, even the 264 candidates in the NSW Tablecloth Election of 1999!

 

 

[hihosland]

Quoth Old Koreelah Voting "above the line" sure simplified things, but I'm amazed there has been no High Court challenge to it. The Constitution says that our reps will be "directly elected by the people"; by voting "above the line" we empower each individual party to select and prioritise our representatives.

 

An idea with which I heartily agree.

 

Also without a massive amount of preference "fiddling" Ricky Muir would never have been elected and yet he is shaping up to be a realcontributor.

 

If he manages to stay there for a couple of terms we may well be very pleased to have him there in our "chamber of review"

 

 

[hihosland]

Eighty knots says two things

 

[ATTACH]47780._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

and

 

Me too, even the 264 candidates in the NSW Tablecloth Election of 1999

 

[eightyknots]

Quoth Old Koreelah Voting "above the line" sure simplified things, but I'm amazed there has been no High Court challenge to it. The Constitution says that our reps will be "directly elected by the people"; by voting "above the line" we empower each individual party to select and prioritise our representatives.

An idea with which I heartily agree.

 

Also without a massive amount of preference "fiddling" Ricky Muir would never have been elected and yet he is shaping up to be a realcontributor.

 

If he manages to stay there for a couple of terms we may well be very pleased to have him there in our "chamber of review"

The problem is that the House of Review, our Senate, is not working the way our Constitution Fathers envisaged it. The Senate was meant to have equal representation from every state, whether Tasmania or New South Wales, which has many times Tassie's population. If, in the House of Representatives, Victoria and New South Wales 'ganged up' on less populous states with a law that would disadvantage them, the Senate could block this.

 

What has spoiled this is the party system in the Senate. Back in the 1970s and 1980s (after Sir John Kerr, etc.), some people proposed that candidates for the Senate should not be permitted to have party affiliation and that they would be Senators for their home state only. After some talk of this, the idea fell away.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Eighty knots says two things[ATTACH=full]39712[/ATTACH]

 

and

 

Me too, even the 264 candidates in the NSW Tablecloth Election of 1999

[ATTACH]47781._xfImport[/ATTACH] Eightyknots has been given an Enzed flag by the Recreational Flying management based on current residence only, not nationality . This applies to other people too, such as Bex in China.

 

[hihosland]

Ah!! then 80kts won't have to make a choice from this lot then

 

[ATTACH]47782._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

in the grand referendum for NZers to chose a new flag.

 

An interesting demonstration of democracy in action when a popular outcry resulted in the NZ govt

 

increasing the choice of flags from 4 to 5 by the inclusion of the "red peak" design in the line up

 

presented for the first of two flag referenda.

 

[Marty_d]

What, nothing with an actual Kiwi on it? Or a sheep...???

 

 

[hihosland]

What, nothing with an actual Kiwi on it? Or a sheep...???

No sheep

 

But more interesting is the lack of a long white cloud or Aotearoa

 

the design guidelines prohibited any living thing or person hence no kiwi (or sheep)

 

but no choices featuring a long white cloud I can't fathom.