• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Republican/Liberal

Status
Not open for further replies.
My views are all over the place, and frankly I think both conservatives and liberals are insane ;) so I guess that makes me neither left or right. I've used the term "up" a couple of times.

What's really turned me off politics in general- and I suppose this is nothing new, only it's gotten worse in the last decade or so - is that at some point "liberal" and "conservative" stopped being political philosophies and started being religions. I actually wrote more on this subject in this post, but then I remembered this isn't a TNZ thread, and I've seen physical fights break out over this topic, so I'll stop there.

Alex

Aw. :(
[puts tomato down]
 
Here we have so many parties on the ballot that I find it implausible that one wouldn't find any of them acceptable enough to vote for them, even if they don't make it into parliament. A few years ago, I had resigned myself to keep voting for a specific party that wouldn't make it into parliament in the foreseeable future, if ever. But I had grown so disenfranchised with the established parties that this was the most acceptable thing to do for me on election days. Sure, it feels kind of crappy not to be truly represented but on the other hand, if no one ever changed their voting habits no new parties (or people) would be successful.
Then, last year, all my crazy choices in the state elections made it into parliament/won a direct mandate. So, I feel a lot less left out nowadays. :)
 
Voting Democrat is inconceivable -- Obama and Progressivism are anathema to me. So that leaves the current field of Republicans to choose from, which is, of course, a field very much fraught with problems. One of them will get my vote, however.

I wish Obama was a progressive!
 
Still could be wors JB, after all here in the UK

At the last few general elections we have a choice of the two main parties

of

Tory
New Tory (sorry I meant New Labour)

Of course we can always go with a third party.
 
Ah yes, the Conservative Democrats! =p

Fortunately, being a Tory, I'm satisfied with this development!
 
I would like to vote for the best candidate, but our primitive election system means that my vote for someone else will usually result in the guy I really, really, really don't want winning over a guy I just really don't want.
I agree. This is why I advocate election reform: 1) The elimination of the Electoral College, and 2) The ranking of candidates in order of preference.

While I do support getting rid of the Electoral College, I prefer the system used in Louisiana and France (and I'm tempted to say somewhere on the West Coast too). Everyone who wishes to run can, there are no primaries. If someone gets a majority, they are elected. If no one gets a majority, the top two go to a runoff.

In theory I would accept instant runoff (if that's what you mean by a preferential ballot)
By ranking the candidates, I mean that your vote would go to your second choice if your first choice didn't win. In the current system, if you vote for a third party candidate you are most likely giving your vote to your least favorite candidate, which discourages people from voting for anybody but Coke and Pepsi.
 
^Sounds like the Alternative Vote system. Which was rejected by UK voters in a 2011 referendum opting to stick with First Past the Post. Whether you agree with the outcome or not it put the issue about voting reform to bed for at least a generation.

Now if we could only have some sort of referendum on the EU. In/Out/Part way etc.. It would at least let our elected officals know the wishes of the electorate, As previous recent referedums re: EU treaties in other countries get rejected which says to me there is a disconnect between what the people of the EU want and what is being fostered upon us.
 
EU referenda are thorny issues. The existence of the EU is a benefit to the people of Europe, but the benefits are long-term or just taken from granted nowadays: economic stability, currency control, free movement, expansion to new markets, etc. It comes with some problems, sure. I won't argue any different.

But the real issue is that national politicians have spent the last 15 years telling people over and over again that every new tax, new regulation, new bureaucracy have been "EU's fault". It's a useful scapegoat for lazy lawmakers and populist leaders. Then come the referendum, and they acted all surprised when it got rejected (not everywhere, tho).

It's not a matter of disconnect between what people want and what people have, it's a disconnect between what politicians say to get elected and what is the interest of the nation.
 
Support for the EU varies from country to country with some countries being more pro and others more anti.

The EU needs to do a better job of selling the benefits to it's citizens. Get rid of red-tape and waste such as the CAP.

As for trade expansion the EEC did that just fine.
Currency control quite a few members of the eurozone are possible in aworse mess than they might have been had they not adopted the Euro and where able to control their own interest rates.

The EU going back was sold as more of a trade association designed to make it easier to sell your goods in other european markets. What we have now is a political entity that most of the EU citizens have never had a direct say on, i.e. if that is what they want. I only mentioned recent rerendum such as the Lisbon treaty which was rejected by French voters, France usually being one of the more pro EU countries. Then the EU decide to rename the treaty so it can by pass national government laws which require referendum on EU treaties. I seem to recall Irish voters rejecting some EU treaties before being send back to the polls until they gave the correct answer.
 
I don't want to derail the thread, but you argued some incorrect informations:

Currency control quite a few members of the eurozone are possible in aworse mess than they might have been had they not adopted the Euro and where able to control their own interest rates.
Arguable. Greece and Ireland could have fared better in the present situation by devaluing their currency, but in the long run that would have turned against them for being stuck with a worthless currency. Trust me: I'm Italian, I know how it works.

The EU going back was sold as more of a trade association designed to make it easier to sell your goods in other european markets.
As you said, that was what the EEC was for. The EU is a different beast.

What we have now is a political entity that most of the EU citizens have never had a direct say on
We actually vote for the European Parliament. There is a democracy deficit in the EU: Commissioners (Ministers) are appointed by the national governments instead of being responsible to the EU Parliament, for example. But to argue for a disenfranchised population is disingenuous at best.

I only mentioned recent rerendum such as the Lisbon treaty which was rejected by French voters, France usually being one of the more pro EU countries. Then the EU decide to rename the treaty so it can by pass national government laws which require referendum on EU treaties. I seem to recall Irish voters rejecting some EU treaties before being send back to the polls until they gave the correct answer.
It was the proposed European Constitution that was rejected by referenda in France and Holland. It was scrapped, and the Lisbon Treaty was created instead, i.e. a looser treaty between sovereign countries and definitively not a Constitution. That was passed by the national assemblies of all member states, as with all treaties. Ireland was the only one to hold a referendum for it (actually, the referendum was held to change the Irish Constitution to allow for the Treaty): the first time it was rejected (barely), Ireland got some concession about it, then it was held again, and it passed (with an overwhelming majority). It also helped that by that point the Irish economy was going in the gutter, and Ireland actually needed European help to bail out. So much for the evil, oppressive EU.

I don't think this thread is really the place for arguing pro or con about the EU. I am also perfectly fine with countries leaving the EU if that's what they wish (in fact, the Lisbon Treaty creates exactly such a procedure). I am pro-European, but more than anything, I am pro-freedom of choice. I just wanted to correct some misinformation about the EU.
 
I never said that the EU was oppressive, I was merely pointing out that it doesn't do as well as job as it should at selling it's self. But with a population of what 500m+ I suppose it is only natural that it might not always succed at doing so.

I'm fully aware that we hold elections to the EU parliament, but do the citizens of the EU want a United States of Europe or a Free trade association? Some of the issues regarding the euro is because national governemns still set fiscal policy within their boundaries. Had fiscal policy been controlled by a central body in charge of regulating it, might these problems had been averted?

But you're right this isn't the thread to discuss the EU. I'm still somewhat on the fence about the EU, it of course does some things I agree with, others I don't. But that's democracy for you. Would I favour the UK's withdrawl from the EU probably not, do I think the EU needs reform probably Yes.
 
Fair enough. I actually agree with your questions: they are important and they need to be answered. Thanks for the polite discussion. European policy can be emotionally charged, it's nice to have a frank exchange of opinions without it devolving into an argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top