Mandates in representative democracy

There has been a lot of talk about mandates lately, however a lot of it seems to ignore the obvious problem of mandates in representative democracy. I would like to point out some of the ways that the debate I have seen here oversimplifies the issues.

Our elections are never a referendum on a single issue.

No issue ever truly boils down to two options as presented by the two major parties.

The only genuine mandate a party gets is by holding power in parliament and being able to pass legislation. There is no other measure.

Representative democracy has always rested on the premise that elected officials negotiate on behalf of the people they represent and that the outcome is determined by negotiation after the election, not by the election itself. Political parties have to some extent reduced the unknown and unpredictable factor in this, which is probably the main reason for their popularity despite their faults, but it is absurd to suggest it has removed the expectation or the need for post election negotiations completely.

It is my view that parties should reflect the wishes of their supporters, reflect what they stand for and do what they think is right. Not to try to second guess democracy. Election time is when they get judged on their performance and if necessary, corrected. Any time a party rejects their own policy due to an obvious mandate, this is a calculated move to avoid bleeding more votes, and a necessary one for the survival of the party in cases where they are in a position to block the change in the senate, but would lose even worse at the next election if they did so.

Some alternative measures I have seen include:

A ruling party only has a mandate to legislate based on what polls show is most popular.

A ruling party only has a mandate to legislate based on specific guarantees made during the previous election campaign.

Coalition or minority governments have no mandate to do anything.

Longy is perhaps the member who carries on about this the most, yet it is also his position that a political party should be able to win government and pass legislation (with a mandate) with less than 50% support and theoretically as low as 11%, and reject the wishes of the other 89%. He appears to think that the whole point of an election is to fulfill his strange notions of fairness to political parties rather than to enact the will of the majority. His concept of a mandate appears to rest on his own personal gut feeling about what the public wants and about how an election outcome should be interpreted. It is a naive view that rejects the reality of representative democracy.


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:07pm:

a mandate is an IRREFUTABLE right to introduce a policy by virtue of voter support.  Im really not interested in debate what a mandate is with you because it wil no doubt involve the minor parties having mandates to overrule majority opinion or such other nonsense. You seem to have massive difficulty with the concept of majority rule. you seem to stil think in special olympics terms.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:43pm:

NOBODY got a mandate for their policies form the 2010 election. only a crazy person would think so.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:05pm:

I know what a mandate is and in 2010, no one had a mandate for anything.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 4:24pm:

Simply winning and election is not necessarily a mandate. it is more complex than that. So do you want to discuss, debate and generally try and work out what a mandate is or are we just going to throw a toddler-style hissy fit about it?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

You really don't know what a mandate is. it is an expressed wish given to the government in an undeniable manner that SHOULD trump opposition even if the oppositions posesses the capability to thwart it. It is MORALITY vs LEGALITY. it is a higher standard. no wonder a leftie doesnt get it LOL!

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 11:04am:

Also the common use of the term 'mandate' in political terms is a vote from the people that clearly identifies that they or a specific policy has voter approval and should therefore be passed without opposition.

BTW, here is a suggestion that would overcome many of the problems inherent in representative democracy, without losing the obvious benefits:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html

(of course, Longy rejects this also, because it might allow the majority to achieve their goals without filtering it through the vested interests of his favourite political party)

gold_medal wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 6:46am:

because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes. the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin. all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them. Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins. stop trying to give an artifical leg-up to some trassexual gay polygamy party candidate who gets 1% of the vote and you seem to think deserves representation. you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

What is a MANDATE?

That is the question that 1st needs to be answered.

Here the answer seems to be authority to enact legislation free from interference or change, that has been contested during an election campaign.

Libs argue that Howard had a mandate for the GST because he focused an election campaign on it, it also fits nicely that Tony has spent the last 2 years saying he'll Axe the Tax, so apparently he will have one & therefore should be supported by Labor in the Senate to repeal the CT.

As I pointed out last night this is nothing to do with mandates but a fishing expedition to help Tony get out of the problem of a difficult senate & promises of DD elections ASAP if they don't secede to his demands.


Quote:

On the question of mandate in general - the level I have set is difficult to achieve, as it should be. If you get the 75% HOR then the issue you focused your campaign on is given, any future major reforms require weight of argument(Indies/Greens) backed by public opinion(within reason, sort term pain is not popular Wink) You win both houses you do what you want for 3 years and are judged. On your premise that Labor will owe Abbott anything let alone some sort of MORAL question - If he gives a full and frank policy Re:DA, with complete details from studies already conducted(proof) that it actually works, how its paid for, how much land is set aside, and how many people appear on the public purse or more than likely how many private government contracts and how muchthey drain consolidated revenue, for at least 6 to 8 weeks whatever the official campaign is and he gets the 75% then fine. He gets both houses then see above. I think your concerned Tony has painted himself into a corner with the statements about going to a DD as soon as possible, Of course he cannot go back now, he'd be the same as Gillard, wouldn't he? So your fishing this line of obligation Wink

"Mandate", as they say, is not a term of art. It is a word having some or other meaning from time to time according to the circumstances and the beliefs or perceptions of the user.
It's important to remember that representative democracy does not mean that the elected representatives are duty bound - they may be bound by electoral survival - to act according to the wishes of the people who elected them,ie the majority. They are technically free agents, as Tony Windsor has shown and may find that freedom has a price.
Nor would it be advisable that representatives should be in any way bound to act by some supposed mandate because circumstances affecting the country can change dramatically between elections.
However, as has been rightly pointed out, there are some cases when the general conception is that a genuine mandate exists for some course of government action or legislation.
I think in the long run the less proscribed a parliament is the better will the country be served.

Here are some more examples of Longy promoting and at the same time complaining about the will of the majority. He even suggests that a government should pass unpopular but necessary legislation. Any more backflips and we will have to start calling him Tony.


gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

an MP who has to vote according to the wishes of the voting electorate also has no real value. you could replace him with... no one.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

'stable govt' is govt that can actually EXIST despite the ebb and flow of popular (and uninformed) opinion. Your system would make it impossible for a govt to make a necessary yet unpopular decision. absolutely and utterly unpopular. Taxes need to be increased??? never happen. taxes lowered to unsustainable levels?  pass every time.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

'popular' meaning voting in support of any idiotic plan that may be supported by the handful of idiots that drive the process. And men of principle like Howard wouldnt last a moment. Can you imagine a GST passing in such a system?

gold_medal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:

You might not like giving control to parties with less than 50% support but it craps all over giving it so people with 10%.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:

Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us. I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democrcay - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Im a fan of the preferential system but I believe there should be a modification that eliminates a candidate if they are more than 10% behind the primary vote winner. In most cases the results are fair but it is never fair when someone gets 48% of the vote and is defeated by someone with 25%. dont bother arguing the point. these are the situations that show the weaknesses of preferential voting.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

My only other problem with preferential is when a primary vote leader is overtaken in the end by someone 10+% behind. I think that is wrong. The notion of a sceond preference having equal weight to a first is inequitable and incorect. The simplistic notion that preferences are actually genuine is also rather ludicrous.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

thats because under the PR system, getting a mandate is next to impossible. That doesnt mean that a mandate isnt there, but rather that it is impossible to prove in the Special Olympics voting system.

When's your next man date FreeDiver? :D

Sorry couldn't resist that comment.

A mandate is where a party goes to an election with a CLEAR policy platform and wins the election.

The carbon tax was not mandated for example but the GST was.

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

Sorry couldn't resist that comment. A mandate is where a party goes to an election with a CLEAR policy platform and wins the election. The carbon tax was not mandated for example but the GST was.

was the ETS?

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:46pm: Sorry couldn't resist that comment. A mandate is where a party goes to an election with a CLEAR policy platform and wins the election. The carbon tax was not mandated for example but the GST was. was the ETS?

No John, that was a LABOR policy, for a mandate to be honored it must be a LIBERAL policy
Liberal governments have a Mandate for everything by virtue of being elected, where as Labor never have a mandate no matter if its a single issue campaign & they receive 90% of the vote.
As Tony pointed out with the ETS/CPRS- Rudds CC policy, we the punters were brainwashed didn't really mean it & are lucky we have people like Tony & Nick to tell us what we ACTUAL want. ;)

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:46pm: Sorry couldn't resist that comment. A mandate is where a party goes to an election with a CLEAR policy platform and wins the election. The carbon tax was not mandated for example but the GST was. was the ETS?

We have a carbon tax not an ETS.

And before you spin out..........the operative word was "CLEAR"

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:46pm: Sorry couldn't resist that comment. A mandate is where a party goes to an election with a CLEAR policy platform and wins the election. The carbon tax was not mandated for example but the GST was. was the ETS? We have a carbon tax not an ETS. And before you spin out..........the operative word was "CLEAR"

And you think I'm spinning out? i thought labors election platform was pretty clear regarding the ETS ... what part were you confused over?

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:46pm: Sorry couldn't resist that comment. A mandate is where a party goes to an election with a CLEAR policy platform and wins the election. The carbon tax was not mandated for example but the GST was. was the ETS? We have a carbon tax not an ETS. And before you spin out..........the operative word was "CLEAR"

But we would have had an ETS had Abbott honoured the mandate given to Rudd.
Rudd campaigned long & loud on CC, remember the "Greatest Moral Challenge" you love to throw in our faces when Copenhagen is mentioned?
That was 1st uttered in the 2007 election campaign.
Or is that now in this context considered ambiguous?

The Lord giveth (Man Dates) & the Lord taketh (Man Dates)!

In this instance, the Lord is the voting Public AND in the foreseeable future, the Lord (the Public) is likely to give & take, much more regularly than the past, as they "dice" with Political Parties, to see who can improve a worsening Economy.

It will be a long process!

This is how I got out of voting- change your electorial address . Then just don't vote again. They won't know if you died or flew off into space. Why vote for a rigged system that couldn't give a shite what you think?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:

Mandates in representative democracy There has been a lot of talk about mandates lately, however a lot of it seems to ignore the obvious problem of mandates in representative democracy. I would like to point out some of the ways that the debate I have seen here oversimplifies the issues. Our elections are never a referendum on a single issue. No issue ever truly boils down to two options as presented by the two major parties. The only genuine mandate a party gets is by holding power in parliament and being able to pass legislation. There is no other measure. Representative democracy has always rested on the premise that elected officials negotiate on behalf of the people they represent and that the outcome is determined by negotiation after the election, not by the election itself. Political parties have to some extent reduced the unknown and unpredictable factor in this, which is probably the main reason for their popularity despite their faults, but it is absurd to suggest it has removed the expectation or the need for post election negotiations completely. It is my view that parties should reflect the wishes of their supporters, reflect what they stand for and do what they think is right. Not to try to second guess democracy. Election time is when they get judged on their performance and if necessary, corrected. Any time a party rejects their own policy due to an obvious mandate, this is a calculated move to avoid bleeding more votes, and a necessary one for the survival of the party in cases where they are in a position to block the change in the senate, but would lose even worse at the next election if they did so. Some alternative measures I have seen include: A ruling party only has a mandate to legislate based on what polls show is most popular. A ruling party only has a mandate to legislate based on specific guarantees made during the previous election campaign. Coalition or minority governments have no mandate to do anything. Longy is perhaps the member who carries on about this the most, yet it is also his position that a political party should be able to win government and pass legislation (with a mandate) with less than 50% support and theoretically as low as 11%, and reject the wishes of the other 89%. He appears to think that the whole point of an election is to fulfill his strange notions of fairness to political parties rather than to enact the will of the majority. His concept of a mandate appears to rest on his own personal gut feeling about what the public wants and about how an election outcome should be interpreted. It is a naive view that rejects the reality of representative democracy. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:07pm: a mandate is an IRREFUTABLE right to introduce a policy by virtue of voter support.  Im really not interested in debate what a mandate is with you because it wil no doubt involve the minor parties having mandates to overrule majority opinion or such other nonsense. You seem to have massive difficulty with the concept of majority rule. you seem to stil think in special olympics terms. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:43pm: NOBODY got a mandate for their policies form the 2010 election. only a crazy person would think so. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:05pm: I know what a mandate is and in 2010, no one had a mandate for anything. longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 4:24pm: Simply winning and election is not necessarily a mandate. it is more complex than that. So do you want to discuss, debate and generally try and work out what a mandate is or are we just going to throw a toddler-style hissy fit about it? longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 4:27pm: You really don't know what a mandate is. it is an expressed wish given to the government in an undeniable manner that SHOULD trump opposition even if the oppositions posesses the capability to thwart it. It is MORALITY vs LEGALITY. it is a higher standard. no wonder a leftie doesnt get it LOL! longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 11:04am: Also the common use of the term 'mandate' in political terms is a vote from the people that clearly identifies that they or a specific policy has voter approval and should therefore be passed without opposition. BTW, here is a suggestion that would overcome many of the problems inherent in representative democracy, without losing the obvious benefits: http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html (of course, Longy rejects this also, because it might allow the majority to achieve their goals without filtering it through the vested interests of his favourite political party)

thus speaks the supporter of a minor party who can never hope to have a mandate for anything so therefore he refutes the notion that anyone else can.

Mandates exist, but they exist in the universe of 'the big boys' not the pitiful sub-culture of minor parties.

Mandates of course are MORAL arguments which is of course why a Greens supporter has not the slightest clue.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:

Here are some more examples of Longy promoting and at the same time complaining about the will of the majority. He even suggests that a government should pass unpopular but necessary legislation. Any more backflips and we will have to start calling him Tony. gold_medal wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 3:38pm: an MP who has to vote according to the wishes of the voting electorate also has no real value. you could replace him with... no one. gold_medal wrote on Jan 19th, 2013 at 11:59am: 'stable govt' is govt that can actually EXIST despite the ebb and flow of popular (and uninformed) opinion. Your system would make it impossible for a govt to make a necessary yet unpopular decision. absolutely and utterly unpopular. Taxes need to be increased??? never happen. taxes lowered to unsustainable levels?  pass every time. gold_medal wrote on Jan 19th, 2013 at 12:02pm: 'popular' meaning voting in support of any idiotic plan that may be supported by the handful of idiots that drive the process. And men of principle like Howard wouldnt last a moment. Can you imagine a GST passing in such a system? gold_medal wrote on Jan 14th, 2013 at 7:41pm: You might not like giving control to parties with less than 50% support but it craps all over giving it so people with 10%. gold_medal wrote on Jan 14th, 2013 at 4:39pm: Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us. I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democrcay - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats. gold_medal wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 6:36pm: why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things. gold_medal wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Im a fan of the preferential system but I believe there should be a modification that eliminates a candidate if they are more than 10% behind the primary vote winner. In most cases the results are fair but it is never fair when someone gets 48% of the vote and is defeated by someone with 25%. dont bother arguing the point. these are the situations that show the weaknesses of preferential voting. gold_medal wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 5:19pm: My only other problem with preferential is when a primary vote leader is overtaken in the end by someone 10+% behind. I think that is wrong. The notion of a sceond preference having equal weight to a first is inequitable and incorect. The simplistic notion that preferences are actually genuine is also rather ludicrous. gold_medal wrote on Jan 15th, 2013 at 2:13pm: thats because under the PR system, getting a mandate is next to impossible. That doesnt mean that a mandate isnt there, but rather that it is impossible to prove in the Special Olympics voting system.

truly pitiful... a selection largely taken out of context of the wider debate. 

And there is another point that I doubt ever passed through your brain FD. An opinion that is diametrically opposed to yours does not by definition become stupid or mock-worthy. Brighter and more intellectual honest people than you would judge the value of an idea before rejecting it.

Longy in all this, you still have not stated what you think a mandate is, beyond saying it is whatever you think the public supports. Given your rejection of the need for majority support to govern, how do you establish a clear mandate?


Quote:

truly pitiful... a selection largely taken out of context of the wider debate.

Of course, and it demonstrates how you change your opinion on an issue depending on how you want to spin it for the coalition.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 3:27pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:48pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:46pm: Sorry couldn't resist that comment. A mandate is where a party goes to an election with a CLEAR policy platform and wins the election. The carbon tax was not mandated for example but the GST was. was the ETS? We have a carbon tax not an ETS. And before you spin out..........the operative word was "CLEAR" But we would have had an ETS had Abbott honoured the mandate given to Rudd. Rudd campaigned long & loud on CC, remember the "Greatest Moral Challenge" you love to throw in our faces when Copenhagen is mentioned? That was 1st uttered in the 2007 election campaign. Or is that now in this context considered ambiguous?

finally a debate on what a mandate means!!! you could argue that Rudd had a mandate for the ETS... perhaps. But at the same time you could argue Howard had one for the GST and equally that Rudd had a mandate for the workchoices repeal.

But so far, we still seem to be defining a mandate but our political persuasions.

FD doesnt believe a mandate exists oither than control of both houses shich essentially makes the word meaningless.

A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.  used properly, a mandate is what ensures that voters get an actual say in the running of the country.

Quote:

FD doesnt believe a mandate exists oither than control of both houses shich essentially makes the word meaningless.

Read it again Longy. That is not what I said. You could even try quoting me rather than telling me what I think. Though I can see why you might think that futile, given that quoting you only produces endless contradictions.


Quote:

A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.

;D

Come on Longy, you could at least try to make sense.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.

if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you!

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:10pm:

Longy in all this, you still have not stated what you think a mandate is, beyond saying it is whatever you think the public supports. Given your rejection of the need for majority support to govern, how do you establish a clear mandate? Quote: truly pitiful... a selection largely taken out of context of the wider debate. Of course, and it demonstrates how you change your opinion on an issue depending on how you want to spin it for the coalition.

'majority' another word you apparently don't understand or care to use appropriately. In the absolute sense, NO PARTY achieves a majority of the vote. The coalition of course is on song to exceed 50% of the vote but I can already see your predictable objection that they are two parties.

So let's take this clear-cut example and see how it works out.

Abbott is obviously going to win the election and by a substantial margin but wll probably not acheive a senate majority. Clearly a major platform will be the CT repeal. But how about this: immediately after the election, a plebiscite is held on the CT repeal. If >50% supports the repeal would you accept then that there is a genuine unequivocal mandate for the CT repeal?  The plebiscite of course is not binding on anyone but do you then think that the greens and labor are honour-bound to vote for the repeal?

before you answer keep in mind that you are a very vocal proponent of direct democracy.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you!

yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament...

move along, ernie.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Quote: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. ;D Come on Longy, you could at least try to make sense.

which part of that confused you? 'moral obligation' or 'voter support'

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie.

do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha?

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha?

that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat.

Quote:

But how about this: immediately after the election, a plebiscite is held on the CT repeal.

And Longy changes his tune yet again. Have you given up pretending that an election is a referendum on a single issue? The coalition would never do this. It is much easier to attack the carbon tax when you make it all about Gillard rather than the tax itself. They are hardly going to start a debate that can only make themselves look incompetent. Abbott himself used to be one of the biggest promoters of the carbon tax. How would people like you know how to vote if it isn't one party against another?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:25pm:

Quote: But how about this: immediately after the election, a plebiscite is held on the CT repeal. And Longy changes his tune yet again. Have you given up pretending that an election is a referendum on a single issue? The coalition would never do this. It is much easier to attack the carbon tax when you make it all about Gillard rather than the tax itself. They are hardly going to start a debate that can only make themselves look incompetent.

good grief FD... I am trying to see if you actually believe the people have a right to repeal the CT. your entire position on mandates is apparently based on the carbon tax which you love and 2/3 of the population hates.

In trying to get a beginning discussion on a mandate I provided you with an example of a single issue uncluttered by other policies to see how you reacted and you did exactly what I expected - deflect.

okay let's try it again and see if your principles exiets outside of your preferences.

we have TWO plebiscites held on the same day.

1) Gay Marriage
2) Carbon tax repeal

Both pass with >50% majority. what does parliament do? vote along party lines or support the peoples wishes?

Also Longy you are yet to explain how you reconcile all this carrying on about clear mandates with your view that a more organised minority should naturally rule over the majority.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Also Longy you are yet to explain how you reconcile all this carrying on about clear mandates with your view that a more organised minority should naturally rule over the majority.

nice try. just answer the above scenario which should be unequivocal and then we can move on to more complex scenarios

Quote:

good grief FD... I am trying to see if you actually believe the people have a right to repeal the CT.

Bit of a non-issue don't you think, given that both major parties plan to repeal it, and this repeal is in fact already written into law?


Quote:

your entire position on mandates is apparently based on the carbon tax which you love and 2/3 of the population hates.

No Longy it is you who changes your opinion on the issue whenever it suit your partisan agenda.


Quote:

In trying to get a beginning discussion on a mandate I provided you with an example of a single issue uncluttered by other policies to see how you reacted and you did exactly what I expected - deflect.

Longy, in the opening post I gave you a link to a lengthy discussion between you and me where I promoted an idea that would achieve the same thing as your plebiscite idea, without the absurd burden your idea imposes. You argued vehemently against it, even claiming that it is the moral thing to do for politicians to act against the will of the majority. The only source of confusion here is you changing your mind constantly.

Quote:

In trying to get a beginning discussion on a mandate I provided you with an example of a single issue uncluttered by other policies to see how you reacted and you did exactly what I expected - deflect. Longy, in the opening post I gave you a link to a lengthy discussion between you and me where I promoted an idea that would achieve the same thing as your plebiscite idea, without the absurd burden your idea imposes. You argued vehemently against it, even claiming that it is the moral thing to do for politicians to act against the will of the majority.

you appear to have this somewhat childish notion that disagreeing with your methodology equals disagreeing with your goals. Grow up. I thought your plan was overly complex and full of holes. Your goals were never in question, but your plan was. it was dumb and nobody else thought muchg of it either...

Now I await your response to the simple scenario I laid out.

two plebiscites...

Quote:

you appear to have this somewhat childish notion that disagreeing with your methodology equals disagreeing with your goals.

You disagreed with both Longy. You completely misunderstood the method. You argued against the will of the majority several times in different ways. You clearly oppose the idea of the will of the majority when it suits you, and support it when it suits you. You are a hypocrite.


Quote:

Your goals were never in question

Yes they were Longy, by you, and the opening posts are full of examples that you seem blissfully ignorant of. You even tried to claim that everyone in that thread disagreed with me.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

Quote: you appear to have this somewhat childish notion that disagreeing with your methodology equals disagreeing with your goals. You disagreed with both Longy. You completely misunderstood the method. You argued against the will of the majority several times in different ways. You clearly oppose the idea of the will of the majority when it suits you, and support it when it suits you. You are a hypocrite. [quote]Your goals were never in question

Yes they were Longy, by you, and the opening posts are full of examples that you seem blissfully ignorant of. You even tried to claim that everyone in that thread disagreed with me. [/quote]

so no comment on the two plebiscite scenario???  it really is a simple matter. you either support a mandate for parliament to support them or not. You lack of a response and your continued deflections are curious - if unsurprising.

And why am I taking this approach? Well I hope it is obvious that the concept of a mandate is essentially a MORAL question. A PRINCIPLED question.

the two plebiscite example was deliberately chosen because you strongly support gay marriage and strongly oppose a CT repeal. But the public supports both? Do you support neither or support both? Supporting only the one torpedoes your entire position.

Of course I would support the outcome Longy. This should be obvious. I have no idea why you harped on about it, as if you are onto something.

You are the only one here arguing against the will of the majority. Yet you are also the one carrying on the loudest about mandates. Hypocrite.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Of course I would support the outcome Longy. This should be obvious. I have no idea why you harped on about it, as if you are onto something. You are the only one here arguing against the will of the majority. Yet you are also the one carrying on the loudest about mandates. Hypocrite.

so to be clear. in the two plebiscite scenario you believe that the senate SHOULD repeal the CT and the lower house should support gay marriage?

Quote:

Longy is perhaps the member who carries on about this the most, yet it is also his position that a political party should be able to win government and pass legislation (with a mandate) with less than 50% support and theoretically as low as 11%, and reject the wishes of the other 89%. He appears to think that the whole point of an election is to fulfill his strange notions of fairness to political parties rather than to enact the will of the majority. His concept of a mandate appears to rest on his own personal gut feeling about what the public wants and about how an election outcome should be interpreted. It is a naive view that rejects the reality of representative democracy.

i particularly loved this quote FD. it was so lastnail-like. I particularly like your concepts of 'majority' and 'mandate' which seem to be interpreted with a view to minority opinion. if you had even half the claimed love for majority rule then you  would have opposed the carbon tax with as much vigor as your support gay marriage.

and yet when the people express a desire to have the CT repealed you seem reluctant to expressly say that labor and the greens are morally obligated to repeal it.

ah the irony of the 11% comment... the greens on 11% imposed a carbon tax on the 89% who voted for parties that said NO to a carbon tax. I look forward to your next 'suicide by hypocrisy' posting.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat.

your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth?

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth?

take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread.

I've given you my example ... stick to that ...

It's just a word bandied about by politicians in an attempt to justify a decision they think will be unpopular with a large section of the electorate and to make the opposition seem unreasonable in objecting to it.

Control both houses and you can be said to have a mandate - that's pretty much it.

Quote:

so to be clear. in the two plebiscite scenario you believe that the senate SHOULD repeal the CT and the lower house should support gay marriage?

No Longy. I said I would support the outcome. I did not say what the outcome would be.


Quote:

I particularly like your concepts of 'majority'

A majority is greater than 50% Longy. I am not sure why this concept seems so odd to you.


Quote:

the greens on 11% imposed a carbon tax on the 89% who voted for parties that said NO to a carbon tax.

Longy this is where your concept of mandate falls apart. It always comes back to you pretending to know what everyone else voted for.


Quote:

I look forward to your next 'suicide by hypocrisy' posting.

You are the one who harps on about mandates while opposing majority rule and insisting the government has every right to impose unpopular changes on the majority. Hypocrite.

Quote:

so to be clear. in the two plebiscite scenario you believe that the senate SHOULD repeal the CT and the lower house should support gay marriage? No Longy. I said I would support the outcome. I did not say what the outcome would be.

???? you support 'the outcome' as long as you dont have the balls to articulate an actual opinion about it.

it is quite clear FD that you dont really believe in mandates or majority rule despite what you say repeatedly. in the two plebiscite example given the only possibly response from a person who believes in direct democracy and rule of the majority would be to say that the parliament should pass both. But you equivocate because YOU believe in one and not the other.

so the real reason you dont beleive in moral arguments and mandates is that they sorta require you to support IN PRINCIPLE policies you personally oppose.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

Quote: so to be clear. in the two plebiscite scenario you believe that the senate SHOULD repeal the CT and the lower house should support gay marriage? No Longy. I said I would support the outcome. I did not say what the outcome would be. [quote]I particularly like your concepts of 'majority'

A majority is greater than 50% Longy. I am not sure why this concept seems so odd to you.


Quote:

the greens on 11% imposed a carbon tax on the 89% who voted for parties that said NO to a carbon tax.

Longy this is where your concept of mandate falls apart. It always comes back to you pretending to know what everyone else voted for.


Quote:

I look forward to your next 'suicide by hypocrisy' posting.

[highlight]You are the one who harps on about mandates while opposing majority rule and insisting the government has every right to impose unpopular changes on the majority. Hypocrite[/highlight].[/quote]

so says the supposed believer in majority rule but who believes it is morally right for the Greens on 11% to impose a carbon tax which is opposed by 2/3 of the people.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

Quote: so to be clear. in the two plebiscite scenario you believe that the senate SHOULD repeal the CT and the lower house should support gay marriage? No Longy. I said I would support the outcome. I did not say what the outcome would be. [quote]I particularly like your concepts of 'majority'

A majority is greater than 50% Longy. I am not sure why this concept seems so odd to you.


Quote:

the greens on 11% imposed a carbon tax on the 89% who voted for parties that said NO to a carbon tax.

Longy this is where your concept of mandate falls apart. It always comes back to you pretending to know what everyone else voted for.


Quote:

I look forward to your next 'suicide by hypocrisy' posting.

You are the one who harps on about mandates while opposing majority rule and insisting the government has every right to impose unpopular changes on the majority. Hypocrite.[/quote]

support the outcome which means what? you support the right of people to vote in a plebiscite but not the right of people to have their view acted on? except on gay marriage of course.

you are a joke and you have just been hoisted by your petard. Big time.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread. I've given you my example ... stick to that ...

stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST?

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread. I've given you my example ... stick to that ... stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST?

when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours.

But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion.

prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST

Longy you are having extraordinary difficulty in figuring out what I am saying. It is really quite simple. Try reading and understanding before responding.

Longy opposes election outcomes that reflect the will of the majority and often calls for minority parties to be given power they do not deserve, insisting this is the only 'fair' outcome. He openly promotes the idea that governments should impose unpopular changes on the public against the will of the majority. Yet he is also the one that harps on the most about mandates, despite not being able to define what such a mandate is. He is a hypocrite.


Quote:

???? you support 'the outcome' as long as you dont have the balls to articulate an actual opinion about it.

Longy you have previously argued that my opinion was somehow undemocratic because I dared to voice an opinion that differed from the majority. Hypocrite.


Quote:

it is quite clear FD that you dont really believe in mandates or majority rule despite what you say repeatedly

How is it clear? You have clearly stated that you reject the concept of majority rule. Is that what you mean by clear? Or is it like when you pretend that an election is a referendum on a single issue and that only you know what the voters really want?


Quote:

in the two plebiscite example given the only possibly response from a person who believes in direct democracy and rule of the majority would be to say that the parliament should pass both

As usualy Longy you are confused. I said I would support the outcome. You took this to mean that I agreed with your prediction of what the outcome would be. That is not the same thing. Understand?


Quote:

so the real reason you dont beleive in moral arguments and mandates is that they sorta require you to support IN PRINCIPLE policies you personally oppose.

No they don't Longy. You have some strange views about democracy. Supporting democracy does not mean you cannot have your own opinion.


Quote:

support the outcome which means what? you support the right of people to vote in a plebiscite

No. I think your idea of plebiscites is silly. It certainly isn't some kind of 'right'. There are much better ways to gauge the will of the majority. Of course, you reject them because you cannot comprehend them.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Longy you are having extraordinary difficulty in figuring out what I am saying. It is really quite simple. Try reading and understanding before responding. Longy opposes election outcomes that reflect the will of the majority and often calls for minority parties to be given power they do not deserve, insisting this is the only 'fair' outcome. He openly promotes the idea that governments should impose unpopular changes on the public against the will of the majority. Yet he is also the one that harps on the most about mandates, despite not being able to define what such a mandate is. He is a hypocrite. Quote: ???? you support 'the outcome' as long as you dont have the balls to articulate an actual opinion about it. Longy you have previously argued that my opinion was somehow undemocratic because I dared to voice an opinion that differed from the majority. Hypocrite. [quote]it is quite clear FD that you dont really believe in mandates or majority rule despite what you say repeatedly

How is it clear? You have clearly stated that you reject the concept of majority rule. Is that what you mean by clear? Or is it like when you pretend that an election is a referendum on a single issue and that only you know what the voters really want?


Quote:

in the two plebiscite example given the only possibly response from a person who believes in direct democracy and rule of the majority would be to say that the parliament should pass both

As usualy Longy you are confused. I said I would support the outcome. You took this to mean that I agreed with your prediction of what the outcome would be. That is not the same thing. Understand?


Quote:

so the real reason you dont beleive in moral arguments and mandates is that they sorta require you to support IN PRINCIPLE policies you personally oppose.

No they don't Longy. You have some strange views about democracy. Supporting democracy does not mean you cannot have your own opinion.


Quote:

support the outcome which means what? you support the right of people to vote in a plebiscite

No. I think your idea of plebiscites is silly. It certainly isn't some kind of 'right'. There are much better ways to gauge the will of the majority. Of course, you reject them because you cannot comprehend them.[/quote]

remarkable.... you are now saying that actually physically asking everyone for their opinion and wishes on a matter is inferior to other ways. it is in fact THE UNDENIABLE best way. Im astonished that it isnt patently clear. I suspect even SOB might understand that. I would say pansi would also accept that everyone being asked their wishes is infinitely superior to any other method of assessing voters wishes.

Let's face it FD. You were faced with a deliciously complex scenario that has tied you up in knots. You believe in direct democracy but somehow reject the idea of a vote. You beliieve in majority rule but then reject a majority's opinion.

For the record, in the two plebiscite example, I would expect the parliament to approve gay marriage despite my well-documented opposition to it. I would likewise expect the parliament to repeal the CT not because I oppose it but because it is RIGHT. It is called democracy - the rule by the majority.

and for the record you have still REFUSED to indicate what you think the parliament should do in the case of these two plebiscites. I can do it, what cant you?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread. I've given you my example ... stick to that ... stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST? when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours. But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion. prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST

what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ...

If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election.

Quote:

it is quite clear FD that you dont really believe in mandates or majority rule despite what you say repeatedly How is it clear? You have clearly stated that you reject the concept of majority rule. Is that what you mean by clear? Or is it like when you pretend that an election is a referendum on a single issue and that only you know what the voters really want?

having a hissy fit now? resorting to blatant lying and distortion?

you have been cornered and defeated not by a better opponent but by a better argument. Your absolute refusal to either comprehensively accept the mandate from the plebiscite (yes there is that word again) or reject it demonstrates quite clearly that your positions on democracy are guided by convenience and policy, not principle. A true democrat would accept without question that a parliament is bound by honour and duty to support it.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Longy you are having extraordinary difficulty in figuring out what I am saying. It is really quite simple. Try reading and understanding before responding. Longy opposes election outcomes that reflect the will of the majority and often calls for minority parties to be given power they do not deserve, insisting this is the only 'fair' outcome. He openly promotes the idea that governments should impose unpopular changes on the public against the will of the majority. Yet he is also the one that harps on the most about mandates, despite not being able to define what such a mandate is. He is a hypocrite. Quote: ???? you support 'the outcome' as long as you dont have the balls to articulate an actual opinion about it. Longy you have previously argued that my opinion was somehow undemocratic because I dared to voice an opinion that differed from the majority. Hypocrite. [quote]it is quite clear FD that you dont really believe in mandates or majority rule despite what you say repeatedly

How is it clear? You have clearly stated that you reject the concept of majority rule. Is that what you mean by clear? Or is it like when you pretend that an election is a referendum on a single issue and that only you know what the voters really want?


Quote:

in the two plebiscite example given the only possibly response from a person who believes in direct democracy and rule of the majority would be to say that the parliament should pass both

As usualy Longy you are confused. I said I would support the outcome. You took this to mean that I agreed with your prediction of what the outcome would be. That is not the same thing. Understand?


Quote:

so the real reason you dont beleive in moral arguments and mandates is that they sorta require you to support IN PRINCIPLE policies you personally oppose.

No they don't Longy. You have some strange views about democracy. Supporting democracy does not mean you cannot have your own opinion.


Quote:

support the outcome which means what? you support the right of people to vote in a plebiscite

No. I think your idea of plebiscites is silly. It certainly isn't some kind of 'right'. There are much better ways to gauge the will of the majority. Of course, you reject them because you cannot comprehend them.[/quote]

your opinion is your right to hold. Your opinion is not your right to impose on others. This is a concept that you may wish to get familiar with when you conduct further forays into the concepts of government by the people and for the people.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread. I've given you my example ... stick to that ... stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST? when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours. But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion. prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ... If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election.

so you dont really believe in democratic will of the people - just getting your own way. How (un)surprising.

and i see you were incapable of answering the two plebiscite question as well. Its the debating version of 'i refuse to answer in case my answer incriminates me'.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread. I've given you my example ... stick to that ... stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST? when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours. But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion. prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ... If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election.

my goodness!!! did you actually say that????

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

im sure weekender means government funded

by multi national corporations

major funding to both parties and the cess pit

of lobbyists

these governments implement and enforce

corporate law over the people

courts enforce corporate law unto the people

many stand under common law and are free from

many violations against sovereignty than

other people ignorant of their true inalienable rights

you may hear different from paid stooges that think

governments print money..

these have been put in their relevant place

before with grace and

forgiveness

namaste

- : )

Quote:

remarkable.... you are now saying that actually physically asking everyone for their opinion and wishes on a matter is inferior to other ways.

Actually Longy, you have also made this same argument. Hypocrite.

BTW, by other ways, I mean other ways of doing the same thing. It was your methodology that I think is silly.


Quote:

it is in fact THE UNDENIABLE best way.

No it isn't. Even you have argued against it. You have also argued against a far more efficient way for the public to register their views on specific issues on the grounds that it requires too much effort from the public.


Quote:

You were faced with a deliciously complex scenario that has tied you up in knots. You believe in direct democracy but somehow reject the idea of a vote.

Again you are confused Longy. In fact confusion is the only thing that is consistent in your arguments. I said I would support the outcome, but that your way of obtaining the vote is silly.


Quote:

You beliieve in majority rule but then reject a majority's opinion.

Longy the only one here who has argued against majority rule is you. Hypocrite.


Quote:

and for the record you have still REFUSED to indicate what you think the parliament should do in the case of these two plebiscites. I can do it, what cant you?

You are confused Longy. I gave a straightforward, clear answer. You have enough trouble figuring out what you say yourself, let alone what others say. Go back and read it again if you are still confused.


Quote:

what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think

Of course, you reject the will of the majority and want the government to impose unpopular changes on people - or at least you did until you jumped on the carbon tax mandate bandwagon. Hypocrite.


Quote:

I've said it a couple of times ...

You have contradicted yourself plenty of times Longy.


Quote:

having a hissy fit now? resorting to blatant lying and distortion?

It is not a lie Longy. There are quotes from you in the opening posts. You rejected majority rule on principle - right up until you jumped on the carbon tax mandate bandwagon. Hypocrite.

So a simple question asking you if a parliament should be expected to follow the will of the people thru a direct vote gets this tirade of deflection and abuse?

you've lost a great deal of credibility today FD. for all your words and all you lofty ideals you dont really believe in democracy of the majority at all. If you did you would categorically state that parliament should obey the outcome of a vote. But you dont.

because despite your unfounded protestations that i dont beleive in majority rule, it is you right now who is saying exactly that - that the clearly expressed will of not just a representative sample but of EVERY VOTER carries no weight.  This is why people so despise the greens and why their vote is dropping all across the country. they hate democracy and whiel giving it lip-service do at every point seek to get THEIR way at the expense of the majority and all you have done tonight is prove the point.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread. I've given you my example ... stick to that ... stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST? when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours. But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion. prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ... If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election. so you dont really believe in democratic will of the people - just getting your own way. How (un)surprising. and i see you were incapable of answering the two plebiscite question as well. Its the debating version of 'i refuse to answer in case my answer incriminates me'.

boy you really are a moron aren't you? I don't care how many examples you put up, be they carbon tax, gay marriage, asylum seekers, changes to superannuation etc etc etc etc ... it doesn't change ...[I'll say it one more time for the dummies, b] If I vote for labor when they take a particular stand , I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election[/b] ... do you need me to repeat it for you? What has majority got to do with it? I don't vote for the majority I vote for me.

And you have the hide to question SOB's intelligence?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread. I've given you my example ... stick to that ... stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST? when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours. But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion. prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ... If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election. my goodness!!! did you actually say that???? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

my goodness you really are an idiot aren't you?

I know what you are going to say ( I expected you too as soon as I wrote it).......  you want to pretend the carbon tax is a change in position? ...

not in my books nor those of anyone with half a brain and an ounce of integrity, Labor went into the election promising a ETS ... they didn't win majority and had to negotiate to get to an ETS .. they done exactly what they said , I don't care how they get to the ETS as long as they get there, the end result is the same, ..

Quote:

So a simple question asking you if a parliament should be expected to follow the will of the people thru a direct vote gets this tirade of deflection and abuse?

I am merely pointing out your confusion and your hypocrisy Longy. I answered your question. Let me make this quite clear so that you may understand.

You are confused.

You are a hypocrite.


Quote:

you've lost a great deal of credibility today FD

You say that every time you lose an argument Longy.


Quote:

because despite your unfounded protestations that i dont beleive in majority rule

But you don't Longy. I have quoted you rejecting it quite plainly.


Quote:

it is you right now who is saying exactly that - that the clearly expressed will of not just a representative sample but of EVERY VOTER carries no weight

You are confused Longy. That is the opposite of what I actually said.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

I've said it a couple of times ...

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think

Hey FD ... you've mistakenly attributed the quotes above to longy ... they were mine.

.

Oops, sorry about that.

There is no absolute mandate to pursue an agenda that has not, at the very least, been placed out before the voting public for dissection and analysis and review.

I took the liberty of  keeping a copy of every major party's policy statement PRIOR to the 2010 election, and I can safely say that not only did the incumbent party, once in power - NOT abide by its own policy as stated to the public - but actually launched on a different program entirely.

There was ZERO suggestion of any '50% women CEOs" or the equally mythical "Women in combat" in the Labor policy platform, and these were issues never aired before the general public before that election, so NOBODY got any chance to review these before that election.

This form of 'mandate' is not only a false application of the privilege of political power - it is a deliberate lie sold to the public by omission - and as such deserves to be struck down by that same public.

I have previously stated that it is the duty of the 'courts' to review legislation ( and most importantly, regulation and departmental policy) to ensure that it complies with the rule of Law - and NOT to accept the 'law as written' as automatically in effect.  You saw an example of this with the Dr Haneef affair - following which striking down by the courts, the government sought to bring in legislation to change the rules in an attempt to ensure that it 'won' such issues.

That style of seeking after a solution that places all the cards in the hands of the accuser (government etc) is anathema to the rule of Law and to democracy, and should rightly ALSO be struck down by the courts.

Where the courts and the government form a single monolithic structure and work as one to ensure the enshrinement of legislation that abrogates the Rule of Law - there remains the right and the duty of The People to strike it down.

'...that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it., and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organising its Powere in such Form, as to them seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that government long established should not be changed for light or transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object (abolition of the Forms to which the populace are accustomed), evinces a Design to reduce them under Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security'.

US Declaration of Independence.

:D

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Quote: In trying to get a beginning discussion on a mandate I provided you with an example of a single issue uncluttered by other policies to see how you reacted and you did exactly what I expected - deflect. Longy, in the opening post I gave you a link to a lengthy discussion between you and me where I promoted an idea that would achieve the same thing as your plebiscite idea, without the absurd burden your idea imposes. You argued vehemently against it, even claiming that it is the moral thing to do for politicians to act against the will of the majority. you appear to have this somewhat childish notion that disagreeing with your methodology equals disagreeing with your goals. Grow up. I thought your plan was overly complex and full of holes. Your goals were never in question, but your plan was. it was dumb and nobody else thought muchg of it either... Now I await your response to the simple scenario I laid out. two plebiscites...

I haven't bothered reading the link provided so may be well off the mark, but an election followed by a plebiscite???
How much would that cost, sure the printers would be happy but everyone else?

Here's an idea, if Tony wants a mandate to repeal the CT with no obstruction from the Senate, make DA the main theme of his campaign, then there can be no argument.

If as I and many suspect he intends to play small target & provide little to NO information about his plans when in government & win on the back of Gillard hate/Labor dissatisfaction then he has no mandate for ANYTHING.

And here's the rub, if an election campaign is the normal one of a policy every 2nd day with no real centre piece that is debated continually then there cannot be a mandate.
GST election = Mandate
My example of Rudd & ETS is tenuous by my own definitions due to the fact that is was not the central theme, it was a big part but so was health & education & Howard fatigue/hate.

So in reality Howard is the only PM to receive an actual mandate in the last 20 years.
IMO

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:34pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread. I've given you my example ... stick to that ... stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST? when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours. But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion. prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ... If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election. my goodness!!! did you actually say that???? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D my goodness you really are an idiot aren't you? I know what you are going to say ( I expected you too as soon as I wrote it).......  you want to pretend the carbon tax is a change in position? ... not in my books nor those of anyone with half a brain and an ounce of integrity, Labor went into the election promising a ETS ... they didn't win majority and had to negotiate to get to an ETS .. they done exactly what they said , I don't care how they get to the ETS as long as they get there, the end result is the same, ..

they went into an election EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY saying 'there will be no carbon tax under a govt I lead'. Like it or not, the current carbon tax is a clear and unequivocal breach of that promise. that is why your clown-like comment about promising one thing and doing another was so entertaining!

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 8:54pm:

Quote: So a simple question asking you if a parliament should be expected to follow the will of the people thru a direct vote gets this tirade of deflection and abuse? I am merely pointing out your confusion and your hypocrisy Longy. I answered your question. Let me make this quite clear so that you may understand. You are confused. You are a hypocrite. [quote]you've lost a great deal of credibility today FD

You say that every time you lose an argument Longy.


Quote:

because despite your unfounded protestations that i dont beleive in majority rule

But you don't Longy. I have quoted you rejecting it quite plainly.


Quote:

it is you right now who is saying exactly that - that the clearly expressed will of not just a representative sample but of EVERY VOTER carries no weight

You are confused Longy. That is the opposite of what I actually said.[/quote]

a simple way for you to end this would be to explicitly answer the question which was: should the parliament be obligated to follow a plebiscite taken of the entire electorate? You have refused to answer and in the absence of an answer or an explanation than I can only assume that you really dont support the notion of direct democracy: that is the people deciding on major legislation.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 7:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:41pm: Quote: In trying to get a beginning discussion on a mandate I provided you with an example of a single issue uncluttered by other policies to see how you reacted and you did exactly what I expected - deflect. Longy, in the opening post I gave you a link to a lengthy discussion between you and me where I promoted an idea that would achieve the same thing as your plebiscite idea, without the absurd burden your idea imposes. You argued vehemently against it, even claiming that it is the moral thing to do for politicians to act against the will of the majority. you appear to have this somewhat childish notion that disagreeing with your methodology equals disagreeing with your goals. Grow up. I thought your plan was overly complex and full of holes. Your goals were never in question, but your plan was. it was dumb and nobody else thought muchg of it either... Now I await your response to the simple scenario I laid out. two plebiscites... I haven't bothered reading the link provided so may be well off the mark, but an election followed by a plebiscite??? How much would that cost, sure the printers would be happy but everyone else? Here's an idea, if Tony wants a mandate to repeal the CT with no obstruction from the Senate, make DA the main theme of his campaign, then there can be no argument. If as I and many suspect he intends to play small target & provide little to NO information about his plans when in government & win on the back of Gillard hate/Labor dissatisfaction then he has no mandate for ANYTHING. And here's the rub, if an election campaign is the normal one of a policy every 2nd day with no real centre piece that is debated continually then there cannot be a mandate. GST election = Mandate My example of Rudd & ETS is tenuous by my own definitions due to the fact that is was not the central theme, it was a big part but so was health & education & Howard fatigue/hate. So in reality Howard is the only PM to receive an actual mandate in the last 20 years. IMO

a plabiscite was just an example to try and get the discussion of a mandate onto simplistic grounds to establish a pattern for further discussion. It would be extremely unlikely to happen for many reasons not the least of which is that it is not binding.

The real point was to establish whether or not the various debaters think that the clearly given wishes of the electorate thru a plebiscite should be followed by the parliament. This enabled us to disentangle the complexities of an election campaign from the question. If you read the responses you will see why the discussion of mandate always founders. Posters here actually dont believe in govt by the wishes of the people at all! John Smith was at least honest in saying he cares for no opinion other than his own. FD argues for the rule of the majority except when the majority opposes his passionate belief. There can be no simpler nor more accurate determination of the wishes of the people than to hold a plebiscite on a single question. But according to FD there are 'better methods'. Methods that will no doubt involve a degree of complexity and bias.

The question of a mandate is complex because it is essentially a moral one, not a legal one. But here we see that the fundamental problem is that too many posters dont really believe in representative democracy at all.

Quote:

a simple way for you to end this would be to explicitly answer the question which was: should the parliament be obligated to follow a plebiscite taken of the entire electorate?

You would think that wouldn't you? It even makes sense. But I tried it, more than once, and it only made you carry on more.


Quote:

It would be extremely unlikely to happen for many reasons not the least of which is that it is not binding.

Are you still claiming it is the best possible way?


Quote:

If you read the responses you will see why the discussion of mandate always founders.

It founders on your hypocrisy Longy. You have previously argued against the will of the majority and you have previously argued that the government should impose unpopular changes on the people. It makes it kind of hard to take anything you say about mandates seriously. Then you ask the same question over and over again and ignore the answers you get. It's like arguing with SOB. You are perpetually confused and oblivious to your own stunning hypocrisy.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 7:49am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 8:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:34pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm: A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support. if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you! yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament... move along, ernie. do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha? that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat. your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth? take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread. I've given you my example ... stick to that ... stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST? when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours. But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion. prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ... If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election. my goodness!!! did you actually say that???? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D my goodness you really are an idiot aren't you? I know what you are going to say ( I expected you too as soon as I wrote it).......  you want to pretend the carbon tax is a change in position? ... not in my books nor those of anyone with half a brain and an ounce of integrity, Labor went into the election promising a ETS ... they didn't win majority and had to negotiate to get to an ETS .. they done exactly what they said , I don't care how they get to the ETS as long as they get there, the end result is the same, .. they went into an election EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY saying 'there will be no carbon tax under a govt I lead'. Like it or not, the current carbon tax is a clear and unequivocal breach of that promise. that is why your clown-like comment about promising one thing and doing another was so entertaining!

They went to the election EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY promising an ETS .. you were lucky if a carbon tax was even mentioned at all , and you know as well as I do that she didn't win the election outright and needed to negotiate a new position to get to the ETS .. If you cannot see the difference you need to have your head checked.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

Quote: a simple way for you to end this would be to explicitly answer the question which was: should the parliament be obligated to follow a plebiscite taken of the entire electorate? You would think that wouldn't you? It even makes sense. But I tried it, more than once, and it only made you carry on more. [quote]It would be extremely unlikely to happen for many reasons not the least of which is that it is not binding.

Are you still claiming it is the best possible way?


Quote:

If you read the responses you will see why the discussion of mandate always founders.

It founders on your hypocrisy Longy. You have previously argued against the will of the majority and you have previously argued that the government should impose unpopular changes on the people. It makes it kind of hard to take anything you say about mandates seriously. Then you ask the same question over and over again and ignore the answers you get. It's like arguing with SOB. You are perpetually confused and oblivious to your own stunning hypocrisy.[/quote]

yet despite your claim to have answered the question, i cannot find a clear answer from you. The question was (if you remember): should parliament honour the results of a plebiscite? you simply cannot answer that question and refuse to do so. and in the absence of an alternate argument I am left believing that you dont really believe in rule by majority. it should be simplicity itself to support this if you genuinely believe in majority rule. so why can you not be explicit in your support or otherwise of this notion?

OK Longy, this is the first time I answered it:


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:

And why am I taking this approach? Well I hope it is obvious that the concept of a mandate is essentially a MORAL question. A PRINCIPLED question. the two plebiscite example was deliberately chosen because you strongly support gay marriage and strongly oppose a CT repeal. But the public supports both? Do you support neither or support both? Supporting only the one torpedoes your entire position.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Of course I would support the outcome Longy. This should be obvious. I have no idea why you harped on about it, as if you are onto something. You are the only one here arguing against the will of the majority. Yet you are also the one carrying on the loudest about mandates. Hypocrite.

Note that in saying I would support the outcome, I do not mean I would change my opinion to agree with the majority.

Anyway Longy, I hope that has answered the question to your satisfaction. I know this is important to you, as you have asked about 50 times. I'm sorry it was not the answer you were so desperately hoping for.

Getting back to the original topic, is there any explanation (other than blatant hypocrisy and mindless partisan cheer-leading) for your previous insistence that political parties should be granted a mandate to rule even if the majority of the voters oppose them, and for your insistence that political parties should impose unpopular changes on us against the will of the majority? This contrasts rather uncomfortably with your more recent harping on about clear and undeniable mandates and the will of the majority in the context of the carbon tax.

I am having trouble understanding how you can hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time while insisting that yours is some kind of morally absolute position. I think you have managed to avoid addressing this issue once in this thread, which is peculiar to say the least. If it were me, I would be keen to explain myself, lest people assume that I backflip on my moral stances whenever it suits the latest Liberal party propaganda.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Anyway Longy, I hope that has answered the question to your satisfaction. I know this is important to you, as you have asked about 50 times. I'm sorry it was not the answer you were so desperately hoping for. Getting back to the original topic, is there any explanation (other than blatant hypocrisy and mindless partisan cheer-leading) for your previous insistence that political parties should be granted a mandate to rule even if the majority of the voters oppose them, and for your insistence that political parties should impose unpopular changes on us against the will of the majority? This contrasts rather uncomfortably with your more recent harping on about clear and undeniable mandates and the will of the majority in the context of the carbon tax. I am having trouble understanding how you can hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time while insisting that yours is some kind of morally absolute position. I think you have managed to avoid addressing this issue once in this thread, which is peculiar to say the least. If it were me, I would be keen to explain myself, lest people assume that I backflip on my moral stances whenever it suits the latest Liberal party propaganda.

you do sometimes mindlessly wank on with zero regard for what others are saying.

I repeatedly asked you the single question if you believed a parliament was duty-bound to honour the outcome of a plebiscite of the entire voting public. and I gave and example of carbon tax repeal and gay marriage specifically so there could not be any partisan bias in the answer.  And what was you answer???

YOU REFUSED TO GIVE ONE.

you have repeatedly rabbited on about direct democracy and yet when confronted with the single most direct form of democracy (literally asking everyone) you were found wanting. Even now you cannot put forward and actual opinion because You dont really believe in direct democracy at all. You beleive in you version of DD where a very small subset of people vote on these matters and curiously are not a genuine subset of voters but rather a group that follows your slant more closely.

You have - as it typical of left-wig nutjobs - repeatedly misrepresented my opinion. Your understanding of 'majority' depends on the context you are discussing.  If it is a carbon tax you somehow assume that there is a mandate and a majority supporting it (despite polls saying the exact opposite) but when the coalition wants a policy you refer to the fasct that their primary vote is below 50%.

Your understanding of the concept of mandate is virtually non-existent because you are trapped in a miasma of your own making. Just as you repeatedly wish to give an artificial legup to minor parties you really dont think much of the wishes of the people.

If you beleived in actual democracy where the wishes of the people are paramount you would support the repeal of the carbon tax. It is in fact a litmus test of your ideological position. Do yu support the primacy of the wishes of the electorate or the primacy of your own opinion.

Like most self-obsessed, faux-righteous left-wingers, you assume that you know better and enforcing your opinion is the preferred solution.

Isnt it lucky therefore that the Australian people have seen thru this garbage and are about to install the coalition into power with a record majority.

True representative democracy is not yet dead - despite your wishes and best efforts.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 10:13am:

OK Longy, this is the first time I answered it: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:53pm: And why am I taking this approach? Well I hope it is obvious that the concept of a mandate is essentially a MORAL question. A PRINCIPLED question. the two plebiscite example was deliberately chosen because you strongly support gay marriage and strongly oppose a CT repeal. But the public supports both? Do you support neither or support both? Supporting only the one torpedoes your entire position. freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:54pm: Of course I would support the outcome Longy. This should be obvious. I have no idea why you harped on about it, as if you are onto something. You are the only one here arguing against the will of the majority. Yet you are also the one carrying on the loudest about mandates. Hypocrite. Note that in saying I would support the outcome, I do not mean I would change my opinion to agree with the majority.

so do you believe that a parliament is duty-bound to repeal the CT in this example? and if it were the only plebiscite do u still think it is fair?

Of course I have answered your stupid question Longy. You quoted me answering it right after you wound yourself up about me never answering it.

Getting back to the original topic, is there any explanation (other than blatant hypocrisy and mindless partisan cheer-leading) for your previous insistence that political parties should be granted a mandate to rule even if the majority of the voters oppose them, and for your insistence that political parties should impose unpopular changes on us against the will of the majority? This contrasts rather uncomfortably with your more recent harping on about clear and undeniable mandates and the will of the majority in the context of the carbon tax.

I am having trouble understanding how you can hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time while insisting that yours is some kind of morally absolute position. I think you have managed to avoid addressing this issue once in this thread, which is peculiar to say the least. If it were me, I would be keen to explain myself, lest people assume that I backflip on my moral stances whenever it suits the latest Liberal party propaganda.

bump

Quite simply, the discussion on mandates founders because posters dont really accept the notion of rule of the majority. And you dont either FD. If you did, you would have quickly and unequivocally agreed that parliament is duty-bound to support a plebiscite of all voters. But you dont. Even now, you can no, will not and do not say so.

Your understanding of parliamentary democracy and the conventions that apply are primitive. You desperately want MMP or any other system that gets the voice of minor parties heard in excess of their actual votes but when a clear majority in absolute terms want the carbon tax repealed, you say no.

and even now, when the coalition looks like getting an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY of the votes cast, youi still are not happy about it. not a majority of seats, not a 2PP artificial majority, but an undeniable arithmetic majority.

You will never understand what a mandate is. You will never consider that any party has one for a policy unless you personally agree with it.

you have NO IDEA what a mandate is. while it is a complex notion, when you reject even an arithmetic majority as a mandate then you will never understand it.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

because posters dont really accept the notion of rule of the majority

so you don't think Howard should have introduced the GST?

John Smith wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:10pm: because posters dont really accept the notion of rule of the majority so you don't think Howard should have introduced the GST?

as previously stated, you don't believe that majority opinion should in any way affect how parties operate. Therefore you don't qualify for an answer to the above question because every answer is irrelevant to you.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

I support rule of the majority. I define 'majority' differently to you. to me - a majority means more than anyone else

;D

So in Longy's alternative reality a majority can be any amount.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

I support rule of the majority. I define 'majority' differently to you. to me - a majority means more than anyone else

So when
Party A gets 40%
Party B gets 30%
Party C gets 30%

Party A supports Policy x,y,z but not w
Party B and C Oppose x,y,z .

Party B supports w while C oppose w.

As party A has more then anyone else x,y,z should be implemented or as no policy has a party total support of more then 50% none of them?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:10pm: because posters dont really accept the notion of rule of the majority so you don't think Howard should have introduced the GST? as previously stated, you don't believe that majority opinion should in any way affect how parties operate. Therefore you don't qualify for an answer to the above question because every answer is irrelevant to you.

why do you proceed to tell me what I think instead of answering the question? I answered your question .... what are you afraid off?  It's a simple enough question ... try being honest just once instead of coming up with your usual pathetic crap.

catprog wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:14pm: I support rule of the majority. I define 'majority' differently to you. to me - a majority means more than anyone else So when Party A gets 40% Party B gets 30% Party C gets 30% Party A supports Policy x,y,z but not w Party B and C Oppose x,y,z . Party B supports w while C oppose w. As party A has more then anyone else x,y,z should be implemented or as no policy has a party total support of more then 50% none of them?

According to Longy, x, y, and z should be implemented, but not w. He sees democracy as there to serve the parties rather than the people, and being fair to party A is more important than what the majority wants. He appears to have taken this a step further and invented some new kind of morality around this concept of fairness to party A, such that a policy that is opposed by the majority should still be imposed, and that there is a clear and unambiguous mandate for this, despite the majority opposing it.

Is that correct Longy? I am curious to know more about how you redefine the meaning of the word majority depending on whether it is the Labor or Liberal party that you are talking about.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

Is that correct Longy? I am curious to know more about how you redefine the meaning of the word majority depending on whether it is the Labor or Liberal party that you are talking about.

I'll re-define it.....

The majority of Liberal Party leaners are employed, work to their potential and pay lots of tax

Whereas

The  majority of Lefties are either unemployed, pay little or effall tax and sponge off the tax payer (see above)

;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

Is that correct Longy? I am curious to know more about how you redefine the meaning of the word majority depending on whether it is the Labor or Liberal party that you are talking about.

you aer a fool FD attacking and abusing people who dont agree with your limited special olympics view of politics. The concept of majority as well as mandate are complex notions but clearly beyond you because rather than think, you attack any idea that you dont aggree witth or frankly, understand. You are like lastnial but nwithout the abuse - although that seems to be changing.

IN virtually EVERY democracy there are more than two parties therefore virtually ensuring that no part gets an arithmetic majority in first preference votes. Therefore to use the simplistic view of majority will almost always fail. However, it should also be noted that a party getting 45% of the vote does not imply that 55% of people disagree with their policies and certainly not with all of them. That is a simplistic notion not worthy of people. the equivalence of 'party' and 'policy' is a juvenile belief.

In our system we call a 'majority' the party that gets 50%+1 of the seats in the lower house. It is a system that has served us well and effectively gives a party a mandate to govern in a general sense. That is not even in debate except to the FD-style people who believe in giving an artificial legup to minority parties. Note also that having a majority of seats in the absence of a majority of first preferences implies that a party's particular policy may not be supported by a majority of people. This is why an opposition exists - to give validation to a policy and to ensure better legislation. The drongos who seem to think that the current opposition is not entitled to oppose legislation do not understand this.

there is a statistical aggregation called two-party prefer ed which presumes to give an aggregated approximation of votes after preferences have been distributed. This usually matches the seat distribution but not always.

So what is a majority exactly? pure numbers of votes? numbers of seats?  Constitutionally, the majority is based purely on number of seats.

I just hope that in the next election that abbott gets >50% of the primary vote so some of you drongos cannot claim he is operating contrary to 'majority opinion'. it is funnily enough the same people who think Gillard has a mandate for her policies while getting less seats, less votes (by far) and not reaching a constitutional majority.

Now I am sure now FD will come back and claim I dont believe in rule of the majority because family firsts 4% of the vote doesnt get representation in the lower house.  Our political system is an adversarial and competitive one. it is not the special olympics. you do not get a medal or a seat just for competing. the seat is won by the winner. the rest are losers and received less votes than the others.

suck it up.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 7:22pm: Is that correct Longy? I am curious to know more about how you redefine the meaning of the word majority depending on whether it is the Labor or Liberal party that you are talking about. you aer a fool FD attacking and abusing people who dont agree with your limited special olympics view of politics. The concept of majority as well as mandate are complex notions but clearly beyond you because rather than think, you attack any idea that you dont aggree witth or frankly, understand. You are like lastnial but nwithout the abuse - although that seems to be changing.

I agree that a mandate is not a simple concept, especially in representative democracy. However I disagree with what you say about a majority. This is a very simple concept. It means more than half. In the context of a mandate it cannot possibly mean anything else.

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 12:07pm: freediver wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 7:22pm: Is that correct Longy? I am curious to know more about how you redefine the meaning of the word majority depending on whether it is the Labor or Liberal party that you are talking about. you aer a fool FD attacking and abusing people who dont agree with your limited special olympics view of politics. The concept of majority as well as mandate are complex notions but clearly beyond you because rather than think, you attack any idea that you dont aggree witth or frankly, understand. You are like lastnial but nwithout the abuse - although that seems to be changing. I agree that a mandate is not a simple concept, especially in representative democracy. However I disagree with what you say about a majority. This is a very simple concept. It means more than half. In the context of a mandate it cannot possibly mean anything else.

in the real world getting an arithmetic majority is near impossible so you need to think a little more clearly than that. 2PP doesnt cut it and even if it di, do you then ascribe a mandate to the winner with no boundaries to it?

Swagman wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 11:52am:

freediver wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 7:22pm: Is that correct Longy? I am curious to know more about how you redefine the meaning of the word majority depending on whether it is the Labor or Liberal party that you are talking about. I'll re-define it..... The majority of Liberal Party leaners are employed, work to their potential and pay lots of tax Whereas The  majority of Lefties are either unemployed, pay little or effall tax and sponge off the tax payer (see above) ;D ;D ;D

Got any stats for that, or are you simply talking from a dark, wet place? Again.

smack! Double post.

Sorry! The old 'missing post syndrome' got me... :-)

itt bunch of autists squabble about their awful political system

Kat wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 8:41pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 11:52am: freediver wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 7:22pm: Is that correct Longy? I am curious to know more about how you redefine the meaning of the word majority depending on whether it is the Labor or Liberal party that you are talking about. I'll re-define it..... The majority of Liberal Party leaners are employed, work to their potential and pay lots of tax Whereas The  majority of Lefties are either unemployed, pay little or effall tax and sponge off the tax payer (see above) ;D ;D ;D Got any stats for that, or are you simply talking from a dark, wet place? Again.

Now now Kitty Kat I'm just being facetious....

Mind you, if one is unemployed, pays little or effall tax and is content to sponge off the tax payer it's a reasonable assumption that they don't vote for the coalition.  I mean why would they? :-?

1.  They likely don't vote at all
2.  More likely they vote for the Gang-Greenies who have simialr values. (IE. reward need and penalise effort)

Quote:

In the real world getting an arithmetic majority is near impossible

Actually it happens all the time. It is a requirement in our system. If you remove this requirement and go to FPTP, it also happens on a regular basis because so many people vote insincerely that only two parties survive.


Quote:

2PP doesnt cut it and even if it di, do you then ascribe a mandate to the winner with no boundaries to it?

Of course it cuts it. That is how our system works. The mandate is no different to that in a FPTP system, or the hybrid system you appear to favour. Balancing power by various means is always a good idea, but at some point laws need to be made, and it makes a whole lot more sense to require majority support rather than your preference for minority winners.

Quote:

In our system we call a 'majority' the party that gets 50%+1 of the seats in the lower house. It is a system that has served us well and effectively gives a party a mandate to govern in a general sense. That is not even in debate except to the FD-style people who believe in giving an artificial legup to minority parties.

Longy, majority normally refers to the voters. Also, it is you who rejects the need for majority in winning elections. It is you who says you should be able to win with less than 50% of the votes. It is you who wants the artificial leg-up for parties that the majority oppose.


Quote:

The drongos who seem to think that the current opposition is not entitled to oppose legislation do not understand this.

;D like the Drongos claiming Labor has no right to oppose Abbott's plans?


Quote:

So what is a majority exactly? pure numbers of votes? numbers of seats?  Constitutionally, the majority is based purely on number of seats.

More than half Longy. This is not a complicated concept.


Quote:

Now I am sure now FD will come back and claim I dont believe in rule of the majority because family firsts 4% of the vote doesnt get representation in the lower house.

No Longy. I claim that you do not believe in rule of the majority because you have complained about our current system that requires majority support and suggested we change it to allow a candidate to win without a majority of the votes.


Quote:

Our political system is an adversarial and competitive one. it is not the special olympics.

Unless it is the parties you support we are talking about, in which case you want special concessions for them.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:14pm:

Quote: In the real world getting an arithmetic majority is near impossible Actually it happens all the time. It is a requirement in our system. If you remove this requirement and go to FPTP, it also happens on a regular basis because so many people vote insincerely that only two parties survive. [quote]2PP doesnt cut it and even if it di, do you then ascribe a mandate to the winner with no boundaries to it?

Of course it cuts it. That is how our system works. The mandate is no different to that in a FPTP system, or the hybrid system you appear to favour. Balancing power by various means is always a good idea, but at some point laws need to be made, and it makes a whole lot more sense to require majority support rather than your preference for minority winners.[/quote]

arithmetic majority of first preferences. a majority of ACTUAL votes. the preferential systems manufactures a majority rather that uses an actual one (at least in a number of seats). we haev debated this before and the fact you disagree with me doesnt invalidate it. second preferences (and third etc) are largely artificial being given simply because the law requires it. it then in many electorates makes a supposed majority vote getter out of someone who didnt get a majority.

And i repeat that in almost all elections worldwide with more than two parties that an arithmetic majority is rare.

Quote:

arithmetic majority of first preferences. a majority of ACTUAL votes. the preferential systems manufactures a majority rather that uses an actual one (at least in a number of seats). we haev debated this before and the fact you disagree with me doesnt invalidate it.

Longy, until you figure out what a majority is no-one will have a clue what you are talking about. Making up terms doesn't exactly help either. Please, get a clue first, then respond. We speak English here. Pretending to have trouble with this is not the same as putting an argument together.


Quote:

second preferences (and third etc) are largely artificial being given simply because the law requires it.

Where preferences are actually distributed this is not true. Does your entire argument rest on blindly insisting that other people's votes are less valid than yours? The law also requires first preference votes.