World Politics

Page 205 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 15, 2009
3,404
17
13,510
auscyclefan94 said:
I was just making a general statement that our system is better than another countries. Don't cut my head off! You hardly have the amount of scrutiny in your job in comparison to politicians. I personally don't understand why people are so against the two main parties. it baffles me. It also baffles me why people vote invalidly. That mentally instable nut case Latham should not be given any attention and it is criminal that Channel 9 airs such rubbish by an idiot just for ratings. Just shows what people and/or organisations do for money.

The sentence in bold does not make sense as you are saying it is right that one should be scrutinised for not doing there job well and then say you would not scrutinise another for not doing there job well.

they're there [supposedly] representing us, so why can't we see what they're up to? There's plenty of stuff that I'm scrutinised by senior management in my job that the pollys certainly wouldn't be. The big difference being that I'd get sacked for being *** while they're just moved about the party rooms with no threat to their job for a couple of years, and even that's only if their seat is marginal...

I'm not touching the lack of journalistic integrity in the Australian media, coz that's a whole other kettle of fish...
 
Jul 3, 2009
18,948
5
22,485
Seriously, what is wrong with Victoria?

It appears as though a member of the "Democratic Labor Party of Australia" is going to be elected as their 6th Senate member. Basically you're swapping one nutjob in Fielding for another called Madigan.

http://www.dlp.org.au/index.php?page=life-marriage-family
http://www.dlp.org.au/index.php?page=finance-and-trade

Their economic policies are worse than The Greens...

So, who are the 2.33% of the primary vote, and which major parties preferenced them.

Ah, the Coalition, what a surprise, their prefences went to themselves > Family First > DLP > Christian Democratic Party > ...

There's still counting to be done I believe, so Fielding may still be in the game, either way it's nothing to celebrate.

What else can I say, but VOTE BELOW THE LINE.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,112
0
0
Ferminal said:
Seriously, what is wrong with Victoria?

It appears as though a member of the "Democratic Labor Party of Australia" is going to be elected as their 6th Senate member. Basically you're swapping one nutjob in Fielding for another called Madigan.

http://www.dlp.org.au/index.php?page=life-marriage-family
http://www.dlp.org.au/index.php?page=finance-and-trade

Their economic policies are worse than The Greens...

So, who are the 2.33% of the primary vote, and which major parties preferenced them.

Ah, the Coalition, what a surprise, their prefences went to themselves > Family First > DLP > Christian Democratic Party > ...

There's still counting to be done I believe, so Fielding may still be in the game, either way it's nothing to celebrate.

What else can I say, but VOTE BELOW THE LINE.

Yes, the LNP Coalition has a lot to answer for. :p
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Ferminal said:
Seriously, what is wrong with Victoria?

It appears as though a member of the "Democratic Labor Party of Australia" is going to be elected as their 6th Senate member. Basically you're swapping one nutjob in Fielding for another called Madigan.

http://www.dlp.org.au/index.php?page=life-marriage-family
http://www.dlp.org.au/index.php?page=finance-and-trade

Their economic policies are worse than The Greens...

So, who are the 2.33% of the primary vote, and which major parties preferenced them.

Ah, the Coalition, what a surprise, their prefences went to themselves > Family First > DLP > Christian Democratic Party > ...

There's still counting to be done I believe, so Fielding may still be in the game, either way it's nothing to celebrate.

What else can I say, but VOTE BELOW THE LINE.

How could they be worse than the Greens???

First past the post isn't the best system either. I don't have a solution to this problem but first past the post I personally don't think is a good system of voting.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
American Idiot(R)

tednugent-500x375.jpg
 
I posted this several days ago, but in the wrong spot. Excuse me for changing subject.

My original thoughts were considered in connection with 9-11 and now by the irrationality and cruelty surrounding the deplorable Muslim attacks of a Christian school in Kashmir. Both cases (the ones mentioned below and this latest development) are symptoms of an identical disease: making of religion and ideological weapon in a global struggle in which sheer idiocy is the only common, unifying ground. We thought history had by our faith in progress made us improve. We were only deluded. Amen


Yesterday during the first class at one of the American university abroad programs I teach at, I was trying to get to know my students and was asking them why they had decided to come to Rome. They are all from the midwest. Among the various responses I got ("for the experience," "to not remain ignorant," "to get out of the US for a bit," etc.) one girl said, in complete seriousness, "because God told me to."

Naturally I didn't immediately understand whether she was kidding or not. She was not. And then I had to think of what to say to that! In the end what was most striking was the realization that no 20 year-old university student from Italy or France or Belgium, because of simple rationalism and worldlyness, would ever say "because God told me to" about anything in their lives. An analogous response among the universe of college age students would only be conceivable, I thought, in the most fundamentalist cultures of the remotest and impenetrable parts of Afghanistan or Africa and under the brutal force of being brain-washed by some fanatical imam, who, preying upon the total ignorance of his young students, is training them as future jihadists. To the people of civilization, because of civilization, who are aware that they are living in a secular society, and not a pre-enlightenment one, it becomes inconceivable to have a need to convince themselves that a higher power, The Almighty, has taken such a personal interest in their existence to dictate what decisions will be made at the various crossroads of life. Naturally this becomes an alibi and, ultimately, a cop-out.

Evidently, however, such is entirely possible in the Midwest, which demonstrates how removed from civilization and how unsettling backwards and religiously bigoted a certain segment of that population is. It is the product of a colossal idiocy, which in America is merely the flip side of the coin of the bigotry, fanaticism and ignorance of the likes of a Terry Jones from Gainesville, Florida (another place where enlightenment hasn't exactly found a happy home). The only difference is that one is apparently innocuous (though I'm not entirely sure), the other potentially destabilizing (like Islamic terrorism) to the entire civilized and democratic world. It just goes to show you that people who can't think for themselves, need to have a higher power do their thinking for them. And for the simple minded or the egotistical, despite suffering from a terrible form of insecurity, such having "God guiding me" can thus convince them that they are actually really important, special, "chosen." Of course in the clinical world such folks have a propensity for narcissism and sociopathy, but are ironically protected from realizing their own weakness by their illusions. My student made me wonder how "civilized" and, above all, enlightened, this world of democracy has really become.

So as if right on que my boy Michele Serra had this to say about Terry Jones in la Repubblica today. If anything, just as with my female student from remote Iowa, the America of 2010 never ceases to amaze us! In any case I'm just hoping that if my student doesn't like the grade she gets in my class, she won't come back with "God told me I deserved a better grade."

The Hammock
by Michele Serra


This reverend Terry Jones, that wants to burn the Koran to celebrate (I intentionally use this verb) September 11, has at least one merit. He reminds us how much the idiots count in history and, let's be frank, in life. For intelligence, in the end, is like democracy: an uninterrupted fatigue along a fragile route; so fragile that even just one single idiot, particularly gifted, is capable of sending straight into the gutter the collective fatigue and intelligence of all the others.

Governments, diplomats, intellectuals, religious hierarchies of the entire planet are, metaphorically, at the feet of one single idiot; the head of a small sect of vice-idiots who are convinced that Truth has established its temporary seat at Gainseville, Florida (imagine that). Cameramen, directors, journalists, satellites, attracted groups, all the whole gargantuan mass media apparatus are, in these days, suspended in the air by just one single idiot, who intends to make of his Ground Zero a sort of weapon of mass destruction and Final Solution. The fact that a providential meteorite crushed him a few seconds before Jones actuated his colossally moronic proposal, is a hope which we should hold in scarce consideration, at least if we are not to be just as idiotic. Such is the power of the idiot: he has the capacity to drag even the others into his terrain.
 
Jun 15, 2009
3,404
17
13,510
auscyclefan94 said:
First past the post isn't the best system either. I don't have a solution to this problem but first past the post I personally don't think is a good system of voting.

seriously?
do you honestly think that the candidate with the fourth highest vote count should win the seat? Does that sound like he's been voted by that electorate to be their elected representative?
 
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
rhubroma said:
...

Yesterday during the first class at one of the American university abroad programs I teach at, I was trying to get to know my students and was asking them why they had decided to come to Rome. They are all from the midwest. Among the various responses I got ("for the experience," "to not remain ignorant," "to get out of the US for a bit," etc.) one girl said, in complete seriousness, "because God told me to."

Naturally I didn't immediately understand whether she was kidding or not. She was not. And then I had to think of what to say to that! In the end what was most striking was the realization that no 20 year-old university student from Italy or France or Belgium, because of simple rationalism and worldlyness, would ever say "because God told me to" about anything in their lives. An analogous response among the universe of college age students would only be conceivable, I thought, in the most fundamentalist cultures of the remotest and impenetrable parts of Afghanistan or Africa and under the brutal force of being brain-washed by some fanatical imam, who, preying upon the total ignorance of his young students, is training them as future jihadists. To the people of civilization, because of civilization, who are aware that they are living in a secular society, and not a pre-enlightenment one, it becomes inconceivable to have a need to convince themselves that a higher power, The Almighty, has taken such a personal interest in their existence to dictate what decisions will be made at the various crossroads of life. Naturally this becomes an alibi and, ultimately, a cop-out.

Evidently, however, such is entirely possible in the Midwest, which demonstrates how removed from civilization and how unsettling backwards and religiously bigoted a certain segment of that population is. It is the product of a colossal idiocy, which in America is merely the flip side of the coin of the bigotry, fanaticism and ignorance of the likes of a Terry Jones from Gainesville, Florida (another place where enlightenment hasn't exactly found a happy home). The only difference is that one is apparently innocuous (though I'm not entirely sure), the other potentially destabilizing (like Islamic terrorism) to the entire civilized and democratic world. It just goes to show you that people who can't think for themselves, need to have a higher power do their thinking for them. And for the simple minded or the egotistical, despite suffering from a terrible form of insecurity, such having "God guiding me" can thus convince them that they are actually really important, special, "chosen." Of course in the clinical world such folks have a propensity for narcissism and sociopathy, but are ironically protected from realizing their own weakness by their illusions. My student made me wonder how "civilized" and, above all, enlightened, this world of democracy has really become.


..
Wow, all of that just from "because God told me to"? Burn people at the stake much (figuratively speaking of course)? God spare us if yours is a sample of enlightenment and a result of higher learning. :eek:
 
kielbasa said:
Wow, all of that just from "because God told me to"? Burn people at the stake much (figuratively speaking of course)? God spare us if yours is a sample of enlightenment and a result of higher learning. :eek:

Indeed, "God spare us." :rolleyes:

Aparently I'm form Mars and the sky is actually purple with pink polkadots...Imagine, until I had read your comment I was entirely unaware!

Next time I shall take such statements, not in light of serious mental instability, but in terms of an "enlightened" relationship with reality. In fact, we should never be alarmed by such statements for they are perfectly rational and should always be taken seriously.

The only problem, though, is when we become so unperturbed as to loose all sense of the ridiculous.
 
Jul 3, 2009
18,948
5
22,485
Archibald said:
seriously?
do you honestly think that the candidate with the fourth highest vote count should win the seat? Does that sound like he's been voted by that electorate to be their elected representative?

What also gets me is people who pay any attention to How to Vote cards.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Archibald said:
seriously?
do you honestly think that the candidate with the fourth highest vote count should win the seat? Does that sound like he's been voted by that electorate to be their elected representative?



I am not saying preferences is the best idea because like in this election the greens saved Labor in so many seats because of preferences. On first preferences, in a fair amount of seats, Liberal would of beat Labor but greens saved them.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,112
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
I am not saying preferences is the best idea because like in this election the greens saved Labor in so many seats because of preferences. On first preferences, in a fair amount of seats, Liberal would of beat Labor but greens saved them.

You do realize that Labor won a heck of a lot more seats than the Liberal Party, don't you? The "Libs" were only in the running to form a Coalition government because of the National Party. And that something like 22,000 more people voted Labor than for the Coalition?
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Spare Tyre said:
You do realize that Labor won a heck of a lot more seats than the Liberal Party, don't you? The "Libs" were only in the running to form a Coalition government because of the National Party. And that something like 22,000 more people voted Labor than for the Coalition?

That's why it is a coalition you idiot! on 2 party preferred they just beat the Coalition but that includes preferences. Coalition had 600000 more votes than Labor.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,112
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
That's why it is a coalition you idiot! on 2 party preferred they just beat the Coalition but that includes preferences. Coalition had 600000 more votes than Labor.

No need for insults, sweetness.

My point is that the Libs can't do it on their own, so it's a bit inconsistent of you to be so upset about Greens giving preferences to Labor. This view is, of course, based on the assumption that you are in fact a Liberal Party supporter rather than a National Party supporter. The National Party have a lower level of support again.

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm

Labor 37.99% of primary vote
Liberal 30.46%
Nationals 3.73%
Lib Nationals of Qld 9.12%
Greens 11.76%
Family First 2.25%
& misc other <1%
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,112
0
0
This tea party stuff is weird and scary.

What on earth is happening in the US?

*

@Rhubroma -- In general I agree with you, but I can see why kielbasa responded as he/she did. IMHO, you went a little overboard with the hyperbole and judgementalism.
 
Spare Tyre said:
This tea party stuff is weird and scary.

What on earth is happening in the US?

*

@Rhubroma -- In general I agree with you, but I can see why kielbasa responded as he/she did. IMHO, you went a little overboard with the hyperbole and judgementalism.

Nope, I was being soft. And I forgot to mention that I asked her if God had literally spoken to her, to which she naturally replied yes. Or the fact that she was quite scandalized by the young Italian couple making out and groping each other on the lawn of the Circus Maximus. She said they showed no respect for society. Which society, I thought. Nobody cares here. I wanted to tell her to relax, you're not in Kansas any more Dorothy. Or nobody is forcing you to watch. But I refrained.

And I find nothing exaggerated about my critical analysis of an American social phenomenon, because in the end this is what we are talking about, that in your own words is weird and scary. It's incredibly hypocritical that usually such puritanical and moralitic types in America often have no problem with the neocon ideology, but get all worked up over sex.

PS: This also explains much about the Tea Party types you are so concerned about, in the sense of a pre-enlightened culture. But excuse me if I'm being too judgmental.
 
Mar 12, 2009
5,209
1,029
20,680
Archibald said:
preference system should be abolished
first past the post - end of...

I have no idea how the system currently works but first past the post breeds a two party system where minority opinion never get a chance to be heard which is not what I call democratic.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,112
0
0
rhubroma said:
Nope, I was being soft. And I forgot to mention that I asked her if God had literally spoken to her, to which she naturally replied yes. Or the fact that she was quite scandalized by the young Italian couple making out and groping each other on the lawn of the Circus Maximus. She said they showed no respect for society. Which society, I thought. Nobody cares here. I wanted to tell her to relax, you're not in Kansas any more Dorothy. Or nobody is forcing you to watch. But I refrained.

And I find nothing exaggerated about my critical analysis of an American social phenomenon, because in the end this is what we are talking about, that in your own words is weird and scary. It's incredibly hypocritical that usually such puritanical and moralitic types in America often have no problem with the neocon ideology, but get all worked up over sex.

PS: This also explains much about the Tea Party types you are so concerned about, in the sense of a pre-enlightened culture. But excuse me if I'm being too judgmental.

Maybe it's your tone that is offensive to others. Your analysis fits with my perception of things.
 
Jun 15, 2009
3,404
17
13,510
ingsve said:
I have no idea how the system currently works but first past the post breeds a two party system where minority opinion never get a chance to be heard which is not what I call democratic.

do you honestly think that the candidate with the fourth highest vote count should win the seat? Does that sound like he's been voted by that electorate to be their elected representative?
and does it matter which group (party) he/she belongs to?

each electorate elects their representative to represent them in the House of Representatives. I don't see how the candidate with the most votes being that representative creates/breeds a two party system...

I honestly believe that the current batch of politicians have lost sight of who they represent and what they are supposed to be doing for those people.
 
Mar 12, 2009
5,209
1,029
20,680
Archibald said:
do you honestly think that the candidate with the fourth highest vote count should win the seat? Does that sound like he's been voted by that electorate to be their elected representative?
and does it matter which group (party) he/she belongs to?

each electorate elects their representative to represent them in the House of Representatives. I don't see how the candidate with the most votes being that representative creates/breeds a two party system...

I honestly believe that the current batch of politicians have lost sight of who they represent and what they are supposed to be doing for those people.

I'm not in favor of single-winner representation at all. I find proportional representation systems much more democratic. If a party has 25% of the popular vote then they should have 25% of the seats and if a party has 5% of the popular vote they should have 5% of the seats. After all seats are divided the party or coalition with a majority gets to rule.

You vote for a party that has a certain platform and what in dividuals that represent that party is only secondary.

As for how a first past the post system breeds a two party system is like this. When you have a variety of parties each with a candidate what will happen is that once one party is bigger than the other parties they will tend to win almost all the seats since the opposing views are split between many other candidates. So for the opposing view to have a shot at defeating the bigger party they will have to gravitate towards one single candidate that can gather all similar opinion and get majority. This leads to a balance back and forth between these now two bigger parties. If a new minority opinion tries to get elected they will take votes from either of the two parties and that will only lead to that side losing all elections since you inevitable take more voters from one side rather than the other.

This is why the US only have Repulblicans and Democrats with a realistic chance of getting elected and why the Tories and Labour has dominated in the UK etc. The libdems have existed for many years and held a good size of the popular vote without getting much for it at all but in a proportional system they would have had much more to say a long time ago.
 
Spare Tyre said:
Maybe it's your tone that is offensive to others. Your analysis fits with my perception of things.

And I am offended by the the constant flow of mental waste that is inexorably overwhelming the planet, human filth in the way of thought, which bogs us down in a constant stream of putrid muck. We try to avoid it, but we can't. We try to escape it, but that's not possible either. When we realize this we pinch our noses to save us from its stench, while slowly taking it in anyway from the breath we inhale through our mouths. We try to move forward with our lives, but with every passing step we are confronted by some Terry Jones we cross paths with and the muck grows deeper; first we're in up to our knees, then it reaches up to our waists, when every effort to continue moving forward becomes increasingly laborious and draining; then we are in up to our necks when this human filth begins to make us want to vomit. Finally it enters us through our mouths and noses and we begin to wish that we had never been born!

At this point the last thing one becomes concerned with are the fragile egos of those who have lost all sense of the ridiculous.
 
Jun 14, 2010
34,930
60
22,580
ingsve said:
I'm not in favor of single-winner representation at all. I find proportional representation systems much more democratic. If a party has 25% of the popular vote then they should have 25% of the seats and if a party has 5% of the popular vote they should have 5% of the seats. After all seats are divided the party or coalition with a majority gets to rule.

You vote for a party that has a certain platform and what in dividuals that represent that party is only secondary.

As for how a first past the post system breeds a two party system is like this. When you have a variety of parties each with a candidate what will happen is that once one party is bigger than the other parties they will tend to win almost all the seats since the opposing views are split between many other candidates. So for the opposing view to have a shot at defeating the bigger party they will have to gravitate towards one single candidate that can gather all similar opinion and get majority. This leads to a balance back and forth between these now two bigger parties. If a new minority opinion tries to get elected they will take votes from either of the two parties and that will only lead to that side losing all elections since you inevitable take more voters from one side rather than the other.

This is why the US only have Repulblicans and Democrats with a realistic chance of getting elected and why the Tories and Labour has dominated in the UK etc. The libdems have existed for many years and held a good size of the popular vote without getting much for it at all but in a proportional system they would have had much more to say a long time ago.

1 if it aint broke dont fix it
2 PR creates weak governments historically.

3 Politics isnt fair. Never will be. In my opinion the main function of democracy is that it prevents tyrany.

Whether the government in power is the "tories" "labour" "lib dems" or "Democrats"/ "Republicans" is of minor importance.

The systems in US and the UK do well to legitimise governments who would otherwise be weak.

I have not much love for CHurchill but he was talking some sence when he said "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others" and he was absolutely spot on when he said "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter". Especially in todays 24 hour news enviroment when a celebrities who dont know the first thing about politics can switch thousands of votes either way with an endorsment, and get to appear on political shows.

As long as there is no tyrany, and parties are taking turns in power the system is working well enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.