I'm still waiting to get my 12-digit password in the mail.
This is just proving why we aren't ready to move crucial government functions online - imagine if this had been election day? It'd be chaos.
1,606 karma · joined November 12, 2012
This is just proving why we aren't ready to move crucial government functions online - imagine if this had been election day? It'd be chaos.
> The Laws should, I think, be updated for the new technology,
I disagree (although being young I've only ever watched cricket with this sort of technology). Given the other aspects of the game rely so much on precision, I can't see letting the umpiring become more subjective and/or allowing for more human error would improve the game.
But that's exactly what you have to do in a first past the post system, and especially with the Electoral college. A vote for Jill Stein (assuming Jill Stein doesn't win) that would have otherwise gone to Hillary Clinton if the voter had chosen the 'least worst option' is in effect a vote against Clinton.
With IRV your advice would be good, but that's not how the US system works.
That's called a 'presidential system'.
Depends on the party. None of them have three or four months of primaries like America, but the Labour Party in the UK and the Labor Party in Australia both have the whole membership voting for the leader now. Others only have elected party members voting (equivalent to US super delegates).
> In New Zealand, you're considered a bit of a loon if you're a card holding party member. I think that a lot more of the population is flexible in who they vote for as well. An MP told me once that 1/3 of voters are independent.
I'd agree to an extent with Australia as well. Those who are party members are, in my experience, older, well connected within the community, more upper class and often involved in some sort of non-partisan activism. Unless someone is trying to be elected, they do avoid showing their colours.
It sure helps though, for example Clive Palmer in Aus in 2013.
> legislators who aren't members of major parties still have influence (sometimes disproportionate) on who is chosen as head of state.
Australia and the UK still have the same monarch, so the head of state is not chosen by anyone in either country - but if you mean the Prime Minister, then you are correct.
Fewer than 200,000 Australians would currently be members of any political party - representing less than 1.5% of the total voters (around 14 million) - and that's being very generous with estimates of party membership figures. Most AFL football clubs would have more members than the major political parties.
Perhaps Australia is too different to compare the United States - compulsory voting (90% turnout this year), shorter campaigns (this year's 8 week campaign was twice as long as usual), elections being held on a weekend, preferential voting (third party votes are still valuable) and the parliamentary system (you never actually vote directly for the leader of the country) obviously result in a very different attitude toward elections and politics.
This is a bit of a non-issue. Expecting to be able to travel anywhere within a matter of a few dozen hours is a recent phenomenon.
Wow, if Apple is only just moving into the software field, they must have some killer apps on the way.
Edit: Additionally, extrajudicial executions are a sign that Duterte doesn't respect the law. If he continues to encourage vigilante killings, there is precedent for him to encourage law breaking in other areas. Who's not to say there won't be electoral laws being flouted?
People voted for Obama and they got Obama. Obama may have said what he wanted to do in office back in 2008 and then not been able to achieve those things, but that doesn't make the US undemocratic. That's how representative democracy works - you vote for representatives, not policies.
I assume you're referring to America. And my answer would be that yes, as abhorrent as segregation, drone strikes and backing coups in other countries is, that doesn't nullify the elections held within that country. It's still a democracy.
> "You brutes have no idea to run a society. We'll come show you how"
And you've just proved my point about democracy and human rights being dismissed as Western colonialism.
What's your alternative to democracy and human rights? A dictatorship that can have anyone it dislikes executed?
Colonialism might have been what brought democracy to many parts of the world - but the two are not one and the same (in fact, colonialism was regarded by many in Europe as being opposed to human rights and democracy). Many former colonies have tossed democracy and the rule of law out the window before - and it hasn't worked particularly well.
> You know the history of your country so I will not have to educate you on the result of preventing people "doing what they like" with regard to their culture and customs.
Well, Australia isn't an authoritarian regime, is it? I'd say that having elections with the government's power constrained by a constitution is going quite well.
> Are you/your ways superior to the people that voted him to do EXACTLY what he is doing? You called his one week old government "totalitarian". Forgetting he was elected for a 6 year term. Is that system they like stupid and petty too? Or should they come take instructions from you? Your country?
Of course I think my political beliefs are superior - that's why they're my political beliefs. I don't go around supporting a political ideology I believe to be inferior. It just so happens that extrajudicial executions are fundamentally opposed to my belief in the goal of a liberal democratic society.
I didn't call Duterte's government totalitarian - I agree that one week is not long enough. But if he's still asking for drug dealers and addicts to be murdered in a year I'll happily call him authoritarian, totalitarian, etc.
I understand he was elected for a six year term. That doesn't justify disregarding the rule of law (the same rule of law that make those elections every six years), nor does it morally justify murder.
The Philippines shouldn't be forced to take instructions from Australia - but that doesn't magically make criticism disappear. I'll criticise Duterte all I like, and I hope the Australian government criticises him too in the future.
On the other hand, if the President of a country says to kill drug dealers and addicts, quite a few people will go ahead and do that, thinking that it's now justified.
So what's the progress towards then? A totalitarian dictatorship that murders people? That's hardly progress of any sort. I'm quite happy to stay on my high horse if that means arguing for the rule of law and basic decency, both things which Duterte has thrown out the window in his quest to rid society of 'problems' by getting vigilantes to murder people.
Hating on democracy and human rights because they're 'Western' (and usually by extension 'Imperial') really annoys me. It's a stupid, petty argument that is continuously peddled by figures in non-Western countries as a justification for doing whatever they like.