Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Electoral Reform. (Read 11896 times)
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #15 - Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:28am
 
BobH wrote on Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:17pm:
Fixed terms, fixed election date and term limits.


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

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #16 - Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:36am
 
I personally dont have a problem with term limits.  In a sense, isnt that democracy at its heart, the people voting for who they want.

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

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #17 - Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:45am
 

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

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

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #18 - Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:47am
 
Equitist wrote on Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:45am:
For the same reasons as Verge, I'd support fixed terms and fixed date elections - preferably at intervals of 4 years...

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


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

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

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
BobH
Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 174
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #19 - Oct 21st, 2010 at 10:32pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:28am:
BobH wrote on Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:17pm:
Fixed terms, fixed election date and term limits.


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

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

There is also the argument, and I know I said it's not about giving everyone a go, but incumbents have an advantage to start off with in every election. A lot of people who don't know who to vote for, vote for the current office holder. The longer that person stays in office and becomes a familiar name with voters, the harder it is for anyone to challenge him. But personally, I don't think that's as strong an argument as the one for politicians becoming increasingly more corrupt and authoritarian the longer they remain in office.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #20 - Oct 23rd, 2010 at 12:04pm
 
BobH wrote on Oct 21st, 2010 at 10:32pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:28am:
BobH wrote on Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:17pm:
Fixed terms, fixed election date and term limits.


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

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

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


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

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
BobH
Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 174
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #21 - Oct 26th, 2010 at 6:40pm
 
Who knows if Bill Clinton would have beat George W Bush. I know Bush ended his presidency unfavorably (though the title of "worst president ever" still belongs to Woodrow Wilson, hands down) but he was popular in 2000 with conservatives and independents. On the other hand, Clinton's Vice-President Al Gore had to distance himself from his own President during the 2000 campaign. But let's look at why the U.S. imposed term limits on the President in the first place.

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

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

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #22 - Oct 26th, 2010 at 6:53pm
 
BobH wrote on Oct 21st, 2010 at 10:32pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:28am:
BobH wrote on Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:17pm:
Fixed terms, fixed election date and term limits.


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

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

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


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

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

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

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20882
Gender: male
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #23 - Oct 26th, 2010 at 6:56pm
 
Quote:
still no idea why anyone supports Term Limits. they are fundamentally undemocratic in that they deny the electorate their preferred choice of PM


LOL we have our preferred PM as you will see by today's poll,LOL Shocked
Back to top
 

  freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
aussiefree2ride
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3538
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #24 - Oct 26th, 2010 at 7:21pm
 
We need reform to election campaigning, all hype, waste and no credibility. Perhaps we could have confirmed facts advertised by one central body, perhaps we could call it the Politburo?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BobH
Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 174
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #25 - Oct 26th, 2010 at 7:22pm
 
Verge wrote on Oct 26th, 2010 at 6:53pm:
And as longy said, it is ultimatley undemocratic.  It is difficult for people to make changes if they are stuck on the back bench and have a term limit imposed on them.  

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

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

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

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

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: Electoral Reform.
Reply #26 - Oct 26th, 2010 at 8:15pm
 
See a great quote only 5 minutes ago.

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

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print