Democracy

[chief23]

We live in democracy right? Well I think we are expected to believe that we do. Sure we have a better quality of life than most other countries. But do we really live in democracy? I read somewhere (forget where) about a bunch of guys in gaol who were fighting over the TV. Some wanted to watch the footy, and others, a documentary. So they had a vote, something like 7 out of 10 wanted the footy. Problem solved, everyone must now watch the footy. Wrong! One bloke argued that in a true democracy everyone is entitled to their fair share. He said they could watch the footy for 7 out of 10 nights, and 3 nights out of 10 they could watch the documentary. Now that’s my kind of democracy!

 

Seems to me, we only get to democratically elect (those with money or power) to run our NAZI-communist-capitalism country.

 

Democracy, the lands where you’re free to do what your told.

 

Chief

[pixel]

yeah chief, it's not a real "democracy"...makes you wonder why people don't all vote independent (or at least something other than the main parties)

[Tom]

Yeah, with the old parties it always seems to be the best crap artist that gets elected, and then re-elected. How many times has little Mr Sheen been caught out, but he’ll probably be re-elected again on some new line of bullshit, then retire on his PM’s pension and Australia will be stuck with a PM that wasn’t voted into the position.

 

[expansion]

Problem with giving your major preference to an independant is that they will never get enough to make govt, so you have really achieved nothing as they direct preferences to the majors anyway.

let's hope we keep the sentate where the independants can keep the bastards honest.

[Tom]

Problem with giving your major preference to an independant is that they will never get enough to make govt, so you have really achieved nothing as they direct preferences to the majors anyway.

Yes, but with those preferences goes the message of that candidates vote winning policies. If enough preferences come from candidates with decriminalisation or legalisation policies mj then the major parties will "adjust" their policies to try and pick up those direct votes. Voting for the person with the best policies to suit you is always the best move, even if they don't stand a chance.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

Indeed. It is precisely because people "think" that there is little value in casting a vote for independent or even anyone aside from the two major parties that there is in fact little effect. The more people feel powerless, the more powerless they become.

 

However, we shouldn't forget who has the balance of power in the senate, and there should always be room for independents in the parliamentary system.

 

2 party politics does not a "democracy" make.

[expansion]

In a two horse race as we have here in oz, I'll always give my major preference to a big party, just to stop the other one! But I will give preferences to independants and greens because I know labor and liberal look at these results, and bang out policies that will try and appeal to those voters. As you said, by voting that way, the big boys have to adjust their thinking, if only a little bit. I still think federal drug laws will not be changed easily because it's a poison chalice, with all the older and conservative fucks out there voting.

[pixel]

yeah the bipartisan system makes people think they have a choice

that's true expansion....it doesn't help, but as Luke said, the more powerless we feel the more powerless we are. People need to be educated and see that they actually do have a say, but not by voting for either side of the "main Party" coin.

[Tom]

If a large enough percentage of people were to vote away from the two main parties then it would scare the living crap out of them and you would see some very major changes in their policies.

 

[Brash]

In a two horse race as we have here in oz, I'll always give my major preference to a big party, just to stop the other one! But I will give preferences to independants and greens because I know labor and liberal look at these results, and bang out policies that will try and appeal to those voters.

Not quite the way it works. Let me explain.

 

In preferenial voting if a candidates get more than 50% they are in and no one gives a toss about preferences. If however no candidate gets a clear 50% then the votes that go to the candidate with the lowest vote, get counted by second preference. This process is repeated until a candiate has a clear 50% who then is 'elected'. This system may sound complicated but it means everone's voteing intentions are counted.

 

If your 1st preference doesn't get up (as in not enough votes) then your second preference is counted. If your second preference fails to get enough votes then your third preference gets counted.

 

The major parties will always see 1st preference (primary vote) after the election but not always the other results. Hence its better to vote independant if you want the big players to notice and your vote still gets counted toward the actual final result (on preferences).

 

Does that make sense? my head is spinning

 

then the major parties will "adjust" their policies to try and pick up those direct votes

Yep, this is how it works. If it looked like a single issue pro cannabis candiate could get +5% of the vote in the upper house, we would see legal pot in this state. I truly believe this and I feel it is very achievable. Edited May 14, 2004 by Brash