|
Post by Kothoses the Tyrant on Oct 31, 2001 10:48:55 GMT -5
I tell you one thing that is WRONG with the so called Democracy I live in, We elect a parliment, who pass laws on our behalf right? WRONG, we elect a parliment who pass laws that then have to be passed again through a UNELECTED HOUSE, now thats wrong.
Although Tony Blair is makeing great Strides towards ending this practise over here, Does anyone else feel that its just out of order that an UNELECTED body can have as much say on the running of our country as an elected one, that is another reason why I refuse to Vote.
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Oct 31, 2001 11:04:00 GMT -5
Hey Fonz, I am guessing..... are you talking about the "House of Lords"?
|
|
|
Post by Kothoses the Tyrant on Oct 31, 2001 11:05:52 GMT -5
Hey Fonz, I am guessing..... are you talking about the "House of Lords"? Damm right I am where else will you find such pollitical tyrannasauruses as Maggie Thatcher and other such Relics from the past that hould have been put out to pasture by now?
|
|
Bex
Slave
just when things were getting interesting too
Posts: 38
|
Post by Bex on Oct 31, 2001 11:08:55 GMT -5
Damm right I am where else will you find such pollitical tyrannasauruses as Maggie Thatcher and other such Relics from the past that hould have been put out to pasture by now? how 'bout the canadian senate?
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Oct 31, 2001 11:15:25 GMT -5
Damm right I am where else will you find such pollitical tyrannasauruses as Maggie Thatcher and other such Relics from the past that hould have been put out to pasture by now? LOL! I can name quite a few in our own Senate; Ted Kennedy, Jessie Helms, Strom Thurmond, Byrd etc. I highly doubt there will ever be an elimination of the House of Lords, after all EVERYTHING in life winds up being about money bro.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Yank on Oct 31, 2001 20:22:46 GMT -5
Elric, do you really think that those of us who rent don't pay property taxes? Somehow I don't think my landlord is paying that bill out of his own pocket, knowhudimean?
How about Robert Heinlen's suggestion: Only veterans can vote?
As to the other points raised in this thread:
1. I don't like the idea of manditory voting. If someone doesn't want to participate, heck with 'em.
2. I think the electoral college needs some sort of overhaul, proportional allocation is good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Maigan on Oct 31, 2001 22:18:55 GMT -5
There was some talk back of giving University graduates TWO votes instead of one, giving them a greater influence in the polls. What are your thoughts on this? Is it a good idea, since the educated would have a better idea of how things should be run? Cripes Zoras!! 18 year old vote here! That probably would mean that the National Marijuana Party would at least get some reps in Parliament LOL! Wow! I had no idea that this would get this kind of response. We use a preferential system which means that a party that is probably not going to get in can give their votes to a party that will. That means in theory that I can vote green but the votes will go to one of the 'big two/three. It is confusing if the greens want to give their vote to a party that I don't ultimately want in government as has happened before now. Elric - you have proposed feudalism! Thank goodness that again we disagree. Fonzie - Australia has the Westminster system also but we vote for both houses (reps and the senate) and yes everything has to get passed twice here too. Sim - because we must vote, every public school and sometimes hospital solarium/community health/community info place is used as a polling booth so there is always one in every town, and lots of absentee and postal voting. Here it is customary to write something on the ballot if you think voting is futile. But this vote is then invalid. There is also much tension prior to deciding who goes where on the form - the donkey vote (numbering in sequence from the top to the bottom of the voting form - 1, 2, 3, ) does cause concern. I don't actually mind my vote being mandatory. So are basic schooling, drivers licences and paying taxes. If I have to pay tax I at least get some say in where it goes LOL - sorry I am a cynic. Kids here get a basic how to vote at school but that means little as far as I am concerned. Finally a question - I thought you guys in the US voted directly for the president (here the PM is chosen by his party - the one with theoretically the most seats which is not the same as the most votes). How is your President elected?
|
|
|
Post by pedro2112 on Nov 1, 2001 0:31:55 GMT -5
Jeezuz H! Do I have to explain everything to you people? We CANNOT "change" the electoral college system. It would take a constitutional amendment. In order for that to pass, 3/4 of the states would need to be on board. All it would take to kill the measure is for 13 states to be against it. As anyone with a half a brain knows, the elimination of the electoral college system would be terrible for small states. There are over 20 states that would NEVER support such an amendment. Hence, it aint ever gonna happen.. period!
Oh, and to the wisenheimer (Koth) who compares the electoral college (a fantastic system that has basically eliminated any chance for an extremist to win the presidency) to the evils listed (milosivic, anti-sufferage, etc), please get a grip! Read my paragraph above, no matter how badly "people" want it to change, it physically CANNOT change unless 3/4 of the states sign on... and that is never going to happen. The last I checked, no political institution or government has ever commited suicide like that.
|
|
|
Post by Nachtrafe-Tyrant Jr on Nov 1, 2001 3:16:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Pedro. I wasn't sure what the required numbers were for constitutional amendments. Been awhile since High School Govt class.
Can I ask a question? What do you think about proportional allocation? What I was talking about in my example above. Many people I know are for that modification. Even some people on the Hill have talked about it, especially after the Florida debacle.
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Post by Lord Bane on Nov 1, 2001 4:31:03 GMT -5
Heh, Fonz, true enough, the House of Lords is a mockery for any "democracy". Maigan! I know you said it in jest, but still, what's wrong with 18 year olds voting (we have the same system, btw) ? I dare say that at least over here the political awareness of teenagers is on average higher than the awareness of the other citizens. Or perhaps better, the youth thinks more about it. Most of the older generations just vote for the Christians because they always did that, and are good catholics after all, without having a clue what this party is all about. On a side note, what Elric proposed isn't exactly feudalism. As far as I can tell first the parties make up their own minds about who'll be candidate for Pres and Vice, and then the mob has to choose one of the parties (or persons, makes no difference since they are one and the same). So I think US citizens choose their President directly. Could be wrong of course Over here (Belgium), I think we have a fairly good election system. Both Senate as Congress (Parliament) are chosen directly by us, whilst the King chooses the formateur, the PM to be (normally a member of the largest party, but not necesseraly. If (s)he doesn't manage to form a coalition for example, leaders of smaller parties can be assigned to the task), who forms the new government. To answer Nachtrafes question (if it isn't clear already ), of course this is a way better system! That way you avoid the theoretical possibility that the one winning the elections has but about one third (!!) of the votes the other, losing, candidate has.
|
|
|
Post by Silmarillion on Nov 1, 2001 4:52:01 GMT -5
Jeezuz H! Do I have to explain everything to you people? We CANNOT "change" the electoral college system. It would take a constitutional amendment. In order for that to pass, 3/4 of the states would need to be on board. All it would take to kill the measure is for 13 states to be against it. As anyone with a half a brain knows, the elimination of the electoral college system would be terrible for small states. There are over 20 states that would NEVER support such an amendment. Hence, it aint ever gonna happen.. period! Oh, and to the wisenheimer (Koth) who compares the electoral college (a fantastic system that has basically eliminated any chance for an extremist to win the presidency) to the evils listed (milosivic, anti-sufferage, etc), please get a grip! Read my paragraph above, no matter how badly "people" want it to change, it physically CANNOT change unless 3/4 of the states sign on... and that is never going to happen. The last I checked, no political institution or government has ever commited suicide like that. *smack* Not every change would require a constitutional amendment. Only certain kinds of changes. AND....it *can* be done, you just seem to feel it's unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Nov 1, 2001 8:40:00 GMT -5
Maigan!
I wasnt, as LB pointed out, proposing Feudalism, because in the USA ANYONE can own property. Bringing up the point was a way to state that while people complain about the "unfairness" of a great many things monetarily in this country, the fact of the matter is that the land owner typically pays the great majority of the tax burdens. Again, my point is that if people want a given service then they should have to pay equally or "shoulder the burden" with those of whom they'd pass a tax on. In my area there are upwards of fifteen renewable levies coming up for vote in a week. I suppose thats why I again brought up my ideas on voting procedure. How I truly feel about the issue is that every legal American citizen should vote and have the right to do so. That many dont, makes me sick to my stomach, considering what others have sacrificed to "give" them the right. The mention of the property holder was a way to state that I am tired of paying the taxes for everyone elses services, where they dont contribute and can level taxes at other people. Billy! Typically when you decide to rent an apartment, your landlord makes you sign a lease for a given period of time (typically one year). Of course some of the tax burdens of his property are passed along. However, being a landlord isnt exactly a cream puff position. When his/her taxes are raised at the levels I've seen recently, he/she can necessarily "tack" on more rent to you. Personally I have yet to see a Landlord raise the rent of someone I know, right *after* their lease expires. After all they are in the business of making money from their property and the only way of doing this is by having occupancy. An empty apartment is a back breaker to the landlord. To be completely honest, I believe that they get the majority of their tax increases from "new" renters. I'll have to ask a cousin of mine who owns twenty or so units, to see how she handles it!?!
|
|
|
Post by Maigan on Nov 1, 2001 10:16:55 GMT -5
Elric - I know it wasn't feudalism. I was just emphasising that I feel that your idea is going backward.
Oh, and tell me about the landlord thing! It is not a money making proposition for me. The only benefit I get is that my boss rents the flat LOL (all sorts of job benefits there!)
LB - I've got an 18yr old and believe me, sometimes the thought of her voting scares the hell outa me LOL Actually I am glad about it - if they can join the armed forces and maybe die they should be able to vote.
|
|
|
Post by ElricMorlockin on Nov 1, 2001 10:30:40 GMT -5
Yes Maigan! Although "Land Lord" sounds exciting, powerful and monetarily sound, its a whole different ballgame to be sure! Most tenants will be an absolute pain in the ass from the word go. You also get a first hand education on just how many people lack complete common sense! I recall helping my cousin replace some PVC piping in one units kitchen, since the *"genius"* tenant thought they'd dump their bacon grease down the sink, then couldnt understand why their sink was clogged!
|
|
|
Post by pedro2112 on Nov 1, 2001 15:56:01 GMT -5
*smack* Not every change would require a constitutional amendment. Only certain kinds of changes. AND....it *can* be done, you just seem to feel it's unlikely. I was talking about those who want to get rid of the electoral college, not tweaking it. NO it cannot be done. It is beyond unlikely. If you had any clue as to what you were talking about (the end results of what a direct election of the president would have on about 23 states) then you would agree with me.
|
|