[Shaunbacca]

JJ, as an Aussie I was compelled to sign up and pass on a few other bits and pieces that may enlighten people a bit more.

In this election the only real winner was the greens party. They should double their representation from five people in the senate to nine plus their first representative in the house.

The two major parties, Labor and Liberal, both failed spectacularly in their own ways. This Labor government is the first first-term government in decades to have such a poor result at an election losing the clear majority they had. This was directly associated with the fact that Labor powerbrokers dumped the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, from his position two months before the election campaign because they thought he wasn't polling well enough to win. That really didn't go over well with the Australian public.

The Liberal opposition did surprisingly well but couldn't manage a death blow to Labor.

A couple of things that characterised the campaigns for the two major parties though were:

• the heavily scripted and extremely boring media cycle of sounds bites day in and day out with very little policy meat ever being annouced
• The unrelenting and solely negative advertising campaigns
• The approach of thinking "if we just make the other side look bad rather than trying to make ourselves look good, we'll win"

It was the most depressingly poor election campaign I've been witness to and what the Australian public ended up with was two essentially unlikable leaders, neither of whom they thought were appropriate to lead the nation.

Probably the most depressing thing about the campaign though was the realisation that people believe all these catch phrases spouted out by politicians without applying any critical thought to what their hearing. I think Bill Maher said it best, something along the lines of "Campaign funding wouldn't matter if it couldn't buy ads that convinced people of anything."

[andyt]

Yep. And you bemoan negative advertising, as everybody does, but it works too - better than the positive stuff, often. We had a woman running for PM who said something like "an election is no time to talk about policy." She actually won, tho not for long. (She was in a position similar to your current Labor head).

[JJ]

hoshie wrote:

JJ,


While a split-party Congress happened in the 80's (the GOP held the Senate from 1981-1987 and the House was Democratic during this time), a split-party Congress has happened more recently in 2001. The November 2000 elections produced a split 50-50 Senate. From the beginning of January 2001 until George W. Bush took office, the Democrats controlled the Senate due to Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote. This happened again in May 2001 when Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the GOP and became an independent. He decided to sit with the Democrats, which gave them the majority. This continued until January 2003. For more see:

Good point. I was aware of the "Jeffords majority" period, as it were, but it seems like a fairly weird, exceptional circumstance that was more of an interim transition than anything else. America hasn't seen a stable, long-term divided Congress since the Reagan era, and even then the analogy is not perfect, because the Democratic Party still had a fairly prominent conservative faction in those days.

Shaunbacca wrote:

The two major parties, Labor and Liberal, both failed spectacularly in their own ways. This Labor government is the first first-term government in decades to have such a poor result at an election losing the clear majority they had. This was directly associated with the fact that Labor powerbrokers dumped the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, from his position two months before the election campaign because they thought he wasn't polling well enough to win. That really didn't go over well with the Australian public.

I was really quite astonished at the whole Gillard coup against Rudd. It seemed so bizarre and arrogant. I saw it as yet another depressing instance of a trend I have been observing — particularly in the parliamentary system — where the political bosses at the top have less and less interest in respecting the wishes of the voters, and instead believe the leadership of the country is something for they themselves to decide in a cliquish fashion, based solely on their own political concerns. Changing the prime minister mid-term simply because you fear he'll loose the next election? I am tempted to splutter "you can't just... DO that!"

[Psudo]

JJ wrote:

Changing the prime minister mid-term simply because you fear he'll loose the next election? I am tempted to splutter "you can't just... DO that!"

I'm tempted to announce proudly "That can't happen in our system!" but very similar things are easily possible. The US Head of Government (President) can't be replaced by whim of the party, but he can resign on his own whim after appointing whoever he wants as his successor. Party leaders can be replaced at the whim of the party, but no actual governmental office changes hands. The Senate/House Majority/Minority Leaders can be replaced at the whim of the party, which is probably the closest parallel; it affects their position in Congress and even their pay without any voter input. It's a bit frightening how much control the parties have in a system designed not to recognize the legitimacy of political parties.

Freedom of assembly is a constitutional right, so I guess we have to live with parties generally. I wish, however, that the major parties would spend more time trying to deserve power than to amass it.

[kettal]

I have to say it's surprising that Australia doesn't have minority parliaments more often, since the elections use STV ballots.

[kettal]

JJ, do you consider any non-anglo nations to have better or more effective political systems?

[bootlegga]

The only changes I'd like to see in Canada's electoral system is to implement some form of PR instead of the archaic FPTP we have now. A review of seats in the Senate would be nice too, but not nearly as important as PR.

I honestly think one reason for voter apathy is that large chunks of voters know long before election day who will represent them in Parliament (most like a Conservative out West and/or in rural ridings, a Liberal or NDP in urban ridings, and a BQ member in most of Quebec). Perhaps if people actually felt their vote would be heard, then more would get out and vote.

[lostend]

I think that Japan and Taiwan should also be a part of this political madness as their own legislative systems are at a halt. Japan has had four prime ministers in four years while Taiwan is at a standstill after they tried to ease tensions with mainland China.

Iraq is in a deadlock for similar reasons as both Taiwan and Japan but the stability of the government is being further eroded after six months of a hung parliament.

Thailand, the Philippines, Greece, Indonesia, Mexico, and Jamaica are all crippled by massive corruption that is taking place within the executive branches of their governments while a multitude of parties vie for power within the vacuum.

Ironically Colombia, South Korea, Venezuela, and Brazil have all had overwhelming majority victory's for the party's in power in recent elections. Considering the majority of these country's may collapse as a result of global factors at any moment, (North Korean Invasion {SK}, Lack of International Investment {Col}, Drop in the price of oil {Ven}, or prolonged seasonal drought {Brz}) it is astonishing that the populace are willing to go for broke in a recession.

Then again this is just my opinion.

[JJ]

kettal wrote:

JJ, do you consider any non-anglo nations to have better or more effective political systems?

I don't think it's really a matter of "nation X has the best system, let's all copy them!"

Most countries have good elements within their systems; the issue is just weeding out the bad ones.

[Bill_Steamshovel]

kettal wrote:

I have to say it's surprising that Australia doesn't have minority parliaments more often, since the elections use STV ballots.

You could argue that every Federal Liberal Government in Australia has been a minority government, given that they can only make a majority with the consent of the National Party, but given the Liberals and Nationals have been in a coalition at a Federal level since 1922, it's a minor technicality which is ostensibly meaningless.

Shaunbacca wrote:

This Labor government is the first first-term government in decades to have such a poor result at an election losing the clear majority they had. This was directly associated with the fact that Labor powerbrokers dumped the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, from his position two months before the election campaign because they thought he wasn't polling well enough to win. That really didn't go over well with the Australian public.

The irony of Kevin Rudd being knifed by Labor party machine men seems to be lost on most people. Leaving aside for a moment the misleading over-simplification of your reason for Labor's poor showing, I'd like to say that this election cycle has been much more interesting than the 2007 election. It may appear to be a depressing result, but electorate has simply said, you're all rubbish and none of you deserve to running the country.

[Zipperfish]

thealmightynarf wrote:

The real problem I think, at least in the US, is that the country is becoming much more politically polar than it's ever actually been before. I mean, I've always been under the understanding the the vast majority of Americans were slightly leaning moderates and that strong followers in either direction were actually quite rare. That really doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I would like to think it's all just hype created by politicians and pundits to fluff their importance, but watching the "Tea Party" rise to it's bizarre amount of influence seems to contradict that.

I don't think the system is a problem, though. I like government more when opposing ideologies are forced to compromise with each other to get anything done, and that's the case in the US more often than not. Letting government push legislation through regardless of whether it's good or bad just for the sake of looking like something is getting done would be far worse in my opinion.

Certainly, the degree of polarization is the most in my (short) memory, but I'm not convinced that this is more politically polar than at any time in the past. The US had a Civil War for instance; one presumes that was preceded by a certain amount of political polarization.

What I see is a situation similar to the 1960s, only instead of the left radicalizing, it's the right. Since the controlling demographic is the Baby Boomers, now entering their dotage, it makes sense since the old tend to be more conservative. I expected the pendulum to swing right. However, the radicalization is the interesting component. It is probably what is limiting the success of the right at the poll booth, at least in Canada and Australia.

[martin14]

JJ wrote:

kettal wrote:

JJ, do you consider any non-anglo nations to have better or more effective political systems?

I don't think it's really a matter of "nation X has the best system, let's all copy them!"

Most countries have good elements within their systems; the issue is just weeding out the bad ones.

True enough, even the East Europe countries have settled into the traditional

left - right split, and they have PR, not FPTP.


It seems that everything these days is being turned into a left - right thing,

and polarization is on the march.

[andyt]

Quote:

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong