Midnight Oil

Subject: Re: NMOC - Re: [powderworks] Re: Is Peter still on the front bench?
From: Miron Mizrahi
Date: 21/07/2010, 11:38 am
To: tomspencer@eml.cc, Chris <seeker42@gmail.com>, Powderworks <powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au>

Midnight Oil

Hi Tom

i do/did not intend to debate the merits of one system vs the other. i was merely pointing out that with respect to Chris' observation (which focused on one aspect of the system), there are some systems (e.g. USA) where this is less likely to happen as well as systems (e.g. IL) where this is not an issue

as I said, each system has its pros and cons and which one you prefer will be down largely to the individual and what trade offs each is prepared to make in order to benefit from the advantages they see. I am familiar with the US and the IL ones, so these were the examples I used

for the record - I would prefer the US one but that is a moot point and only makes for - perhaps - a lively debate over beers. I live in Oz and that it where I vote and I make my choices based on the Oz system. I try to retain as much decision making as I can but i certainly dont go about moaning how our system sucks. I have criticism but I also feel very lucky to be living in a country where I am allowed to vote. and I feel sad that we have to force people to do so to get a decent turnout. many many people on earth don't enjoy this fundamental right and it would seem we have a fair number who couldn't care less
 
Miron

How could people get so unkind?


From: Tom Spencer <tomspencer@eml.cc>
To: Miron Mizrahi <mironmizrahi@yahoo.com>; Chris <seeker42@gmail.com>; Powderworks <powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au>
Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 11:17:20 AM
Subject: NMOC - Re: [powderworks] Re: Is Peter still on the front bench?

 

Ah, Miron, the old 'separation of powers'.  You may be aware that the U.S. system is pretty much the U.K. system as of 1776.  Half a century later, the Poms made the Executive (i.e. the king) accountable to Parliament, by requiring Him to act through ministers drawn from Parliament; or 'responsible government'.
 
The fact that the Executive (now the PM) now controls the Parliament through responsible govt appears due to the party system developing in the 19th c. to stop pork-barrelling and other corruption, but I still reckon the parliamentary system is better, 'cos at least the Executive can DO things (unlike Clinton in the '90s, when U.S. Govt workers didn't get paid for several months, unlike Qld Health workers today, who haven't been paid properly for months because of a computer stuff-up.)
 
If the Republicans in the U.S. get control of Congress in the 2010 November elections, "I gotta' feeling" they might do a "Black-Eyed Peas" on it - "We'll shut it down.  Burn the roof.  And then we'll do it again", whereas they couldn't do that in Oz.  Well, not since 1975...
 
t
 
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:23 -0700, "Miron Mizrahi" <mironmizrahi@ yahoo.com> wrote:
I agree with you. it is a drawback of the Aussie system. If you look at the US system, the separation of legislative and executive is much cleaner. so you vote for a person when you vote for the executive. the govt ministers are not elected (though approved by those who are). then there is representative votes for the houses. so you voting for a republican rep. has nothing to do with you voting for a democrat senator and an independent president.

the other end of the spectrum is Israel where you don't (in reality) vote for a person at all. you vote for a party which publishes its ranking of candidates. if the party gets 25 seats, then candidates 1-25 are in.

ofcourse, both system, just like any man made thing, have their own problems

I don't think this drawback is necessarily inherent in the system but it definitely opens the door for this situation. and it can be avoided. if you rank each candidate then your pref. count, not the inter-party agreements. except that most people don't.
 
Miron

How could people get so unkind?
 

From: Chris <seeker42@gmail. com>
To: Tom <tomspencer@eml. cc>; Powderworks <powderworks@ yahoogroups. com.au>
Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 9:14:43 AM
Subject: [powderworks] Re: Is Peter still on the front bench?

 

> But as to voting for your local representative, s/he represents a party, as well as you. Otherwise we're
> back to 19th century Britain, where individual reps need not follow any party line, except that line pointing > to a party to celebrate a new construction contract, such as 'tunnelling' a highway in your home state:

Oh, quite. I'm just a bit personally bitter about it - at the last
election, my local seat ended up with the worst MP in the country
(Belinda Neil, for those in Australia), based on an election campaign
which went something very much like this:

"Kevin Rudd has a very forward-thinking view for Australia. We should
vote for Belinda Neil because then Kevin Rudd will be Prime Minister
for Australia and everything will be wonderful"

The campaign worked, just well enough. Primary votes still favoured
the incumbent Liberal member despite a 7.8% swing against him (45.63%
of the vote to 42.93%) but after accounting for preferences, largely
from the Greens, Belinda Neil won the 2 Party Preferred race by 184
votes, making this the most marginal seat in the state.

That's really not how Representative democracy is supposed to work.
Particularly when, on the whole, the incumbent MP (Jim Lloyd) had been
politically effective and well liked by the community.

Which I guess speaks to a failing of Representative government, in
that the majority party leads alone - the community wasn't
dissatisfied with Jim Lloyd. They were annoyed that John Howard
refused to step down before the election. I don't know anybody (in my
own region) who voted for Labor based on policy - they just wanted a
new leader, and didn't much care if a new party came with it.

- Chris