Thought I'd bring this debate up.

Better system: NSW or Federal?

NSW = Fixed 4 year terms, Federal = 3 year open ended terms.

What do you find the best? I find that fixed 3 year terms is best because you see at Federal that the government has less time to screw up. In NSW, the government can take the voters for granted and still fix itself in time for the election. As seen in 2007.

What do you say?

When we say 'Fixed Term', I would like to see it mean EXACTLY that.

i.e. Having voted on Sat 24 Nov 2007, the next election should have been held on the Sat closest to 24 Nov 2012.

Taking into account the schmozzle of the recent election, perhaps 3 years from 'Swearing-in' date would be better.

None of the BS of calling an election for a date that suits the incumbent.

I do prefer 3 year terms, myself....

:)

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285574633/2#2

Lobo wrote on Oct 16^th, 2010 at 6:30pm:

When we say 'Fixed Term', I would like to see it mean EXACTLY that. i.e. Having voted on Sat 24 Nov 2007, the next election should have been held on the Sat closest to 24 Nov 2012. Taking into account the schmozzle of the recent election, perhaps 3 years from 'Swearing-in' date would be better. None of the BS of calling an election for a date that suits the incumbent. I do prefer 3 year terms, myself.... :)

You prefer 3 year terms?
So did Kevin Rudd.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 16^th, 2010 at 8:39pm:

Lobo wrote on Oct 16th, 2010 at 6:30pm: When we say 'Fixed Term', I would like to see it mean EXACTLY that. i.e. Having voted on Sat 24 Nov 2007, the next election should have been held on the Sat closest to 24 Nov 2012. Taking into account the schmozzle of the recent election, perhaps 3 years from 'Swearing-in' date would be better. None of the BS of calling an election for a date that suits the incumbent. I do prefer 3 year terms, myself.... :) You prefer 3 year terms? So did Kevin Rudd.

Yeah, Libs don't. They prefer a 1 year term for their leaders.

James Bluntus wrote on Oct 16^th, 2010 at 8:58pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 16th, 2010 at 8:39pm: Lobo wrote on Oct 16th, 2010 at 6:30pm: When we say 'Fixed Term', I would like to see it mean EXACTLY that. i.e. Having voted on Sat 24 Nov 2007, the next election should have been held on the Sat closest to 24 Nov 2012. Taking into account the schmozzle of the recent election, perhaps 3 years from 'Swearing-in' date would be better. None of the BS of calling an election for a date that suits the incumbent. I do prefer 3 year terms, myself.... :) You prefer 3 year terms? So did Kevin Rudd. Yeah, Libs don't. They prefer a 1 year term for their leaders.

You mean 11 years of course. It`s funny how ALP tards fear their own party members as much as their opposition.   ;D ;D ;D ;D

No of course not. But at least Labor has the balls to challenge their leaders. What about Peter Costello.

Said he and Howard made a deal, but he wouldn't challenge him.

Step 1 for political reform...

Ban Corporate political donations...and this includes paid luncheons.

Step 1a, make it an offense for a religion, an organised crime family, and a union to influence / corrupt political process.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 8:42am:

Step 1a, make it an offense for a religion, an organised crime family, and a union to influence / corrupt political process.

Well I guess that means Tony "mad monk" Abbott will be banned from politics   ;)


In Victoria we also now have 4 year fixed state terms. I would prefer to see 4 year fixed terms at the federal level too.
3 years isn't long enough. Currently governments (of both persuasions) spend the first year basking in the glory/blaming the previous incumbants and then spend the third year bribing the public for re election. That only leaves the second year when governments actually govern

James Bluntus wrote on Oct 16^th, 2010 at 8:58pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 16th, 2010 at 8:39pm: Lobo wrote on Oct 16th, 2010 at 6:30pm: When we say 'Fixed Term', I would like to see it mean EXACTLY that. i.e. Having voted on Sat 24 Nov 2007, the next election should have been held on the Sat closest to 24 Nov 2012. Taking into account the schmozzle of the recent election, perhaps 3 years from 'Swearing-in' date would be better. None of the BS of calling an election for a date that suits the incumbent. I do prefer 3 year terms, myself.... :) You prefer 3 year terms? So did Kevin Rudd. Yeah, Libs don't. They prefer a 1 year term for their leaders.

Are you terminally idiotic? you really want to play count-the-leader? look only at your state of NSW where each year they appoint a new Captain of the Titantic aka Premier. or Rudd - the assasinated PM.

4 year fixed terms with a maximum of 2 terms for an individual PM..That should focus their attention on getting things done.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 12:04pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 17th, 2010 at 8:42am: Step 1a, make it an offense for a religion, an organised crime family, and a union to influence / corrupt political process. Well I guess that means Tony "mad monk" Abbott will be banned from politics   ;) In Victoria we also now have 4 year fixed state terms. I would prefer to see 4 year fixed terms at the federal level too. 3 years isn't long enough. Currently governments (of both persuasions) spend the first year basking in the glory/blaming the previous incumbants and then spend the third year bribing the public for re election. That only leaves the second year when governments actually govern

You obviously missed the point about religion, unions etc.  but I agree with you re 4 year terms, particularly for Victorians, who take so long to do anything. ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 3:14pm:

James Bluntus wrote on Oct 16th, 2010 at 8:58pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Oct 16th, 2010 at 8:39pm: Lobo wrote on Oct 16th, 2010 at 6:30pm: When we say 'Fixed Term', I would like to see it mean EXACTLY that. i.e. Having voted on Sat 24 Nov 2007, the next election should have been held on the Sat closest to 24 Nov 2012. Taking into account the schmozzle of the recent election, perhaps 3 years from 'Swearing-in' date would be better. None of the BS of calling an election for a date that suits the incumbent. I do prefer 3 year terms, myself.... :) You prefer 3 year terms? So did Kevin Rudd. Yeah, Libs don't. They prefer a 1 year term for their leaders. Are you terminally idiotic? you really want to play count-the-leader? look only at your state of NSW where each year they appoint a new Captain of the Titantic aka Premier. or Rudd - the assasinated PM.

:( :( :(Who`d want to be the leader of the NSW  ALP?, they`d have to be full on desperate for a "power trip".   :o :o :o

Fixed terms, fixed election date and term limits.

BobH wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 10:17pm:

Fixed terms, fixed election date and term limits.

still no idea why anyone supports Term Limits. they are fundamentally undemocratic in that they deny the electorate their preferred choice of PM. and as long as the PM goes to regular elections, who cares if he is PM for 2 terms or 10 terms? Term Limits sounds like an idea put up in primary school for captain of the sports team - so everyone gets a go. And it belongs there - not in federal govt.

I personally dont have a problem with term limits.  In a sense, isnt that democracy at its heart, the people voting for who they want.

As for election dates, I think fixed terms, IMHO three years, fixed dates so we dont have this cat and mouse games.

For the same reasons as Verge, I'd support fixed terms and fixed date elections - preferably at intervals of 4 years...

There are merits in term limits too - especially for PMs...

Equitist wrote on Oct 18^th, 2010 at 11:45am:

For the same reasons as Verge, I'd support fixed terms and fixed date elections - preferably at intervals of 4 years... There are merits in term limits too - especially for PMs...

Im interested to hear the merits behind fixed limits.  For me, it appears that it goes against democracy in its most pure form.

About all it does is remove power players from the game every two terms.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2010 at 11:28am:

BobH wrote on Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:17pm: Fixed terms, fixed election date and term limits. still no idea why anyone supports Term Limits. they are fundamentally undemocratic in that they deny the electorate their preferred choice of PM. and as long as the PM goes to regular elections, who cares if he is PM for 2 terms or 10 terms? Term Limits sounds like an idea put up in primary school for captain of the sports team - so everyone gets a go. And it belongs there - not in federal govt.

The idea isn't to give everyone a go. The idea is to get politicians out of office before they become too comfortable in the position. The longer someone stays in office, the more out-of-touch they become, the more money they generally spend, the more power they try to wield, the more cosy they become with special interests etc. Imposing term limits also gives them a set period of time in which they have to do what it is they promised they would do. No more pussy footing around.

There is also the argument, and I know I said it's not about giving everyone a go, but incumbents have an advantage to start off with in every election. A lot of people who don't know who to vote for, vote for the current office holder. The longer that person stays in office and becomes a familiar name with voters, the harder it is for anyone to challenge him. But personally, I don't think that's as strong an argument as the one for politicians becoming increasingly more corrupt and authoritarian the longer they remain in office.

BobH wrote on Oct 21^st, 2010 at 10:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:28am: BobH wrote on Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:17pm: Fixed terms, fixed election date and term limits. still no idea why anyone supports Term Limits. they are fundamentally undemocratic in that they deny the electorate their preferred choice of PM. and as long as the PM goes to regular elections, who cares if he is PM for 2 terms or 10 terms? Term Limits sounds like an idea put up in primary school for captain of the sports team - so everyone gets a go. And it belongs there - not in federal govt. The idea isn't to give everyone a go. The idea is to get politicians out of office before they become too comfortable in the position. The longer someone stays in office, the more out-of-touch they become, the more money they generally spend, the more power they try to wield, the more cosy they become with special interests etc. Imposing term limits also gives them a set period of time in which they have to do what it is they promised they would do. No more pussy footing around. There is also the argument, and I know I said it's not about giving everyone a go, but incumbents have an advantage to start off with in every election. A lot of people who don't know who to vote for, vote for the current office holder. The longer that person stays in office and becomes a familiar name with voters, the harder it is for anyone to challenge him. But personally, I don't think that's as strong an argument as the one for politicians becoming increasingly more corrupt and authoritarian the longer they remain in office.

but it still fundamentally denies the PEOPLE their choice of PM. a PMs behaviour comes under scrutiny every election anyhow so I fail to see the object to it. And as an example to prove my point, Bill Clinton was immensely popular and would have easily won the 2000 presidential election. Term limits made that impossible and instead gave us GWB - worst president in history. That example alone should prove the point.

Who knows if Bill Clinton would have beat George W Bush. I know Bush ended his presidency unfavorably (though the title of "worst president ever" still belongs to Woodrow Wilson, hands down) but he was popular in 2000 with conservatives and independents. On the other hand, Clinton's Vice-President Al Gore had to distance himself from his own President during the 2000 campaign. But let's look at why the U.S. imposed term limits on the President in the first place.

It wasn't actually law until 1947. Before that it was just convention. George Washington set that convention by stepping down after two terms. In his farewell speech he indicated that he believed there should be a limit on how long a President holds office to prevent him becoming a dictator. So it was understood to be a convention of office. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe did the same as Washington. It wasn't until FDR that a President did break the two term convention. FDR was elected to a third term and then a fourth but died a year into his fourth term. It became evident, at least to the U.S. congress, that Washington's words were ringing true. FDR, though loved by the people (probably because he introduced the idea of entitlements into a country that previously had to work hard and earn money), was becoming authoritarian to some extent.

FDR tried to pack the supreme court with people who were on his side politically. To effectively control two branches of government. He broke international law and constitutional wartime conventions. He was accused of defying the constitution in other respects (10th amendment, general welfare clause etc.). You know, things that are considered common practice for a U.S. President these days. So the congress, which was controlled by a conservative coalition of the Republican right and Southern Democrats, began to accuse FDR of becoming an authoritarian, somewhat of a tyrant, and a dictator (or as much of a dictator one can be in a democratic country). So when he died in office, the congress pretty much immediately passed a constitutional amendment that would limit Presidents to two terms.

Bill Clinton was a reasonable guy, a moderate, who probably would have remained reasonable and moderate even after four more years as the most powerful man in the world. But someone else, like George W Bush or Barack Obama, might go down the road of FDR if they hold office too long. Imagine if Bush got elected to a third term. He was already defying the constitution, consolidating the powers of the three branches of government, even in his first term. Obama is going the same. I can't imagine what he'll be like if he's elected for a second term. God help us if he got elected for a third term after that. So term limits are good when it comes to the U.S. President. It was understood as far back as Washington that power corrupts and the longer a President remains in office, the more he's likely to turn from a mere public servant to a dictator.

BobH wrote on Oct 21^st, 2010 at 10:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:28am: BobH wrote on Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:17pm: Fixed terms, fixed election date and term limits. still no idea why anyone supports Term Limits. they are fundamentally undemocratic in that they deny the electorate their preferred choice of PM. and as long as the PM goes to regular elections, who cares if he is PM for 2 terms or 10 terms? Term Limits sounds like an idea put up in primary school for captain of the sports team - so everyone gets a go. And it belongs there - not in federal govt. The idea isn't to give everyone a go. The idea is to get politicians out of office before they become too comfortable in the position. The longer someone stays in office, the more out-of-touch they become, the more money they generally spend, the more power they try to wield, the more cosy they become with special interests etc. Imposing term limits also gives them a set period of time in which they have to do what it is they promised they would do. No more pussy footing around. There is also the argument, and I know I said it's not about giving everyone a go, but incumbents have an advantage to start off with in every election. A lot of people who don't know who to vote for, vote for the current office holder. The longer that person stays in office and becomes a familiar name with voters, the harder it is for anyone to challenge him. But personally, I don't think that's as strong an argument as the one for politicians becoming increasingly more corrupt and authoritarian the longer they remain in office.

And as longy said, it is ultimatley undemocratic.  It is difficult for people to make changes if they are stuck on the back bench and have a term limit imposed on them.  

All I see happening is pollies becoming impatient and less being achieved.  You can give everyone everything now.

But ultimatley the people should have the right to determine who represents them.

Quote:

still no idea why anyone supports Term Limits. they are fundamentally undemocratic in that they deny the electorate their preferred choice of PM

LOL we have our preferred PM as you will see by today's poll,LOL :o

We need reform to election campaigning, all hype, waste and no credibility. Perhaps we could have confirmed facts advertised by one central body, perhaps we could call it the Politburo?

Verge wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 6:53pm:

And as longy said, it is ultimatley undemocratic.  It is difficult for people to make changes if they are stuck on the back bench and have a term limit imposed on them.   All I see happening is pollies becoming impatient and less being achieved.  You can give everyone everything now. But ultimatley the people should have the right to determine who represents them.

I just don't see it so much as a limit on the voters as it is a limit on the office holders.

But moving on to other ideas for electoral reform. For a long time now people have proposed adding a "none of the above" option to ballots. Sometimes as tongue-in-cheek, other times as a serious proposal. I do like that idea to some degree. Especially because everyone has to vote anyway. Let them vote for 'none of the above'. I think it's just about as powerful a message you can send to the government. If 'none of the above' wins, that's a clear message to government that the voters aren't happy with any of them. But what happens if 'none of the above wins'? Does whoever came in second to 'none of the above' win? I heard an intriguing idea about this just recently. Perhaps if 'none of the above' wins, that office is vacated. It's interesting, is all I will say.

As I said, the reason I am a little bit intrigued by the 'none of the above' idea is that we all have to vote anyway. Which brings me to what I think is the most obvious idea for electoral reform that I can't imagine there being a lot of objection to. Voluntary voting. Seems like the most obvious thing in the world. If you want to talk about "undemocratic", then what about denying people the right not to vote? Democracy is all about choice. Yet we deny people the choice to engage in it or not. Why do we even want everyone engaged in the democratic process? Do you really want those people who don't want to vote, who don't care about politics, deciding our elections? They'll either just vote for the incumbent, the funniest sounding political party, leave in blank, or draw dick and balls on it. I think you want people who watch the news and have an informed opinion on the political parties and their candidates for election. Let those who don't care stay at home.

See a great quote only 5 minutes ago.

"If voting made a real difference they would make it illegal."