G
GiftofMercy
Guest
Australia is not a republic. @Rozellelily
- Status
A
ATraveller
Guest
:australia:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
ATraveller
Guest
Breaking up a two-party system has its own problems.
The Netherlands has 13 parties with seats in their House of Representatives. Their system allows as many parties possible to win seats. If a party gets at least 2% of the vote, they win at least one seat. Big money’s influence is much weaker. So this is very democratic and much more representative than the systems in America and Commonwealth countries.
But then how do you run a country when no party gets more than 20% of the vote/seats? They will have to negotiate to form coalitions. And that means everyone willing to join this coalition will have to give up something.
The Netherlands has 13 parties with seats in their House of Representatives. Their system allows as many parties possible to win seats. If a party gets at least 2% of the vote, they win at least one seat. Big money’s influence is much weaker. So this is very democratic and much more representative than the systems in America and Commonwealth countries.
But then how do you run a country when no party gets more than 20% of the vote/seats? They will have to negotiate to form coalitions. And that means everyone willing to join this coalition will have to give up something.
Last edited:
T
Trishie
Guest
Is any democracy truly a democracy if minority interest can dictate to, and override, the wishes and opinions of the majority on radical matters?
And as there never really is equal treatment or opportunity amongst human beings, perhaps true democracy can never occur on earth,
unless democracy only means that we leave it open as a hope and a dream.
A priest once said to me, “at least you try, That’s more than some people do”
And a bishop I knew well laughed when I said: ‘my name sums me up, “Tri (Try) …I try. But “sh”…I don’t do so well” He laughed because he knew it is true.
(PS The “ie” is just an Australian tendency to familiarity and intimacy in the same lighthearted way we even tend to call ourselves Aussies)
However politicians and political matters may yet darken this lighthearted, easygoing tendency.
But to try is important, and that’s what we must do, try to walk the razor line of creating a democratic democracy that may be impossible to realistically achieve.
And as there never really is equal treatment or opportunity amongst human beings, perhaps true democracy can never occur on earth,
unless democracy only means that we leave it open as a hope and a dream.
A priest once said to me, “at least you try, That’s more than some people do”
And a bishop I knew well laughed when I said: ‘my name sums me up, “Tri (Try) …I try. But “sh”…I don’t do so well” He laughed because he knew it is true.
(PS The “ie” is just an Australian tendency to familiarity and intimacy in the same lighthearted way we even tend to call ourselves Aussies)
However politicians and political matters may yet darken this lighthearted, easygoing tendency.
But to try is important, and that’s what we must do, try to walk the razor line of creating a democratic democracy that may be impossible to realistically achieve.
Last edited:
R
Rozellelily
Guest
Thanks @GiftofMercy.
Yes it’s still a Monarchy here but I don’t know which option would better out of Monarchy or Republic.
Yes it’s still a Monarchy here but I don’t know which option would better out of Monarchy or Republic.
R
Rozellelily
Guest
This is true @Trishie but is it also true democracy if the system is set up such that the majority vote for the predominant parties,and their policies,not necessarily because it’s the voters informed wishes,but rather more because money has bought their way into the public’s minds and consciousness?
What I mean by this,is when the public go to the ballot boxes to voting,and they see for example “Joe Random” as an independent,99 % of the population will not vote him because they have never heard of him or know what he stands for as he doesn’t have the money to promote himself.
So does Joe Random ever really stand a chance?
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
unions would also have to be banned from donating. they are a big source of money for the politicians that cry about corporate influence.
I would stop ads also. leave it to the candidate alone to run the show
T
Theo520
Guest
I don’t know what you mean by “full democracy”
Any form of govt is highly susceptible to corruption but the benefit of electing your reps is that it creates competition and some containment. I think democratic governments do respond to the will of the people, with some attenuation. I certainly don’t want the govt giving a knee jerk response to every public fad.
On the whole our global democracies have done much to improve the lives of their citizens.
I
IQ170
Guest
We speak of “democracy”, when two wolves and one sheep vote for “what will be the dinner tonight”?
P
phil19034
Guest
I agree with the unions. But it think it would be hard (and a bad idea) to limit groups from running issue advocacy adds.phil19034:
unions would also have to be banned from donating. they are a big source of money for the politicians that cry about corporate influence.
I would stop ads also. leave it to the candidate alone to run the show
H
Hodos
Guest
A sizable percentage of the population is now openly embracing communism as a viable option, and are open to using violence to silence people they disagree with. As a result you are actually seeing conservatives take more and more hard line stances on issues. Both sides are polarizing along the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
P
phil19034
Guest
I’m sorry, but I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I never said anything about making reps not consult with their constituents. A good rep should know what his/her people want.
However, a representative should never feel required to vote against his/she personal conscience.
The US is a democratic republic. The representatives don’t have constantly poll their constituents before voting & they are allowed to vote according to their personal conscience, religious values, etc.
What I said is that some people WANT a representative democracy. These people don’t want a congressman using their religious values, etc.
Philosophically, this is one of the major differences between the Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats do LEAN towards “representative democracy.” This is why it’s common for Catholic Democrats (who say they are personally against abortion) to vote pro-choice. Their claim is that if 51%+ of their people are pro-choice, then they must vote pro-choice. This is an example of the “representative democracy” philosophy in action.
Again, this is actually one of the fundamental (not policy) differences between the Republicans and Democrats in the United States.
Republicans are more “republican” in philosophy, while Democrats are “democratic” in theirs.
However, that does NOT meant that all Republicans are “republican” in their philosophies. For example, I think Trump has a “representative democracy” worldview in regards to Congress.
However, a representative should never feel required to vote against his/she personal conscience.
The US is a democratic republic. The representatives don’t have constantly poll their constituents before voting & they are allowed to vote according to their personal conscience, religious values, etc.
What I said is that some people WANT a representative democracy. These people don’t want a congressman using their religious values, etc.
Philosophically, this is one of the major differences between the Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats do LEAN towards “representative democracy.” This is why it’s common for Catholic Democrats (who say they are personally against abortion) to vote pro-choice. Their claim is that if 51%+ of their people are pro-choice, then they must vote pro-choice. This is an example of the “representative democracy” philosophy in action.
Again, this is actually one of the fundamental (not policy) differences between the Republicans and Democrats in the United States.
Republicans are more “republican” in philosophy, while Democrats are “democratic” in theirs.
However, that does NOT meant that all Republicans are “republican” in their philosophies. For example, I think Trump has a “representative democracy” worldview in regards to Congress.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Mammon is not just stuff. Mammon is power. It is going to be very difficult in a secular society to separate Mammon from secular power. If other sentiments get just a bit of the political power, that is a major accomplishment.
Last edited:
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
We also speak of democracy when people find out they can vote themselves money from the treasury.
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
Democracy should be all about majority rule.
But in 2016, one presidential candidate received over three million more votes than did the the next highest vote getter.
Despite this fact, the number two vote getter was elected because of the so-called Electoral College.
With a slight advantage in so-called electoral votes, the will of the people…the will of the majority of the people was not fulfilled.
This was an example of democracy at its worst.
What should happen in the future is to have the Electoral College abolished.
Then the presidential election should go to a process where a secondary elect is held, a so-called runoff, when one candidate does not get one vote over 50 percent of the votes in the primary election.
But in 2016, one presidential candidate received over three million more votes than did the the next highest vote getter.
Despite this fact, the number two vote getter was elected because of the so-called Electoral College.
With a slight advantage in so-called electoral votes, the will of the people…the will of the majority of the people was not fulfilled.
This was an example of democracy at its worst.
What should happen in the future is to have the Electoral College abolished.
Then the presidential election should go to a process where a secondary elect is held, a so-called runoff, when one candidate does not get one vote over 50 percent of the votes in the primary election.
T
Theo520
Guest
No, it’s an example of how a Republic operates.
In contrast, a democracy is where two wolves and a lamb vote for “who’s lunch”?
F
Fauken
Guest
Ah, lovely, so I can then have everything in the sparsely populated rural area I live in be dictated by metropolitan places like NYC and LA. No thanks.
The US is not, and never has been, a democracy.
Last edited:
A
ATraveller
Guest
This is where I think a good Senate is wonderful.
Both America and Australia have Senates that prevent this.
Meanwhile in Canada, our Senate winds up favouring the East and large cities just like the House.
Last edited:
A
ATraveller
Guest
Proportional representation, which is considered to be the most democratic system, allows this to happen too. This is the case right now in Norway but no one complains about it.
Last edited:
- Status