|
>> >> "Apparently the thought of dynastic succession without a fair election goes
>> >> against the grain for the average American - particularly as sons tend to
>> >> follow in the footsteps of their fathers, and perpetuate unresolved causes." >> I'll bet you thought this was clever, didn't you? I take it that this was a
>> sarky reference to the presidential election of 2000. Correct me if I'm wrong. Touchy, touchy. Don't you think there is a delicious historical irony here:
- Saddam loses a war to George Bush Senior
- Saddam claims that he will be in power long after George Bush is gone from
the White House.
- Saddam is proved right.
- George Bush Jr wins power through a process which is widely criticized as
being un-democratic (even in the US).
- George Bush Jr goes to war with Saddam.
- Saddam attempts graceful retirement by putting his own son in charge.
- George Bush Jr takes action to see that this will never happen.
The world's most successful democracy follows the path of dynastic
succession, while a brutal dictatorship is prevented from doing so. If you don't think that's kind of funny, then I suggest you stop reading my
articles, because I think it's a riot! >> If I'm right, here's a tip; feel free to file it away for future reference: In
>> the United States, election procedures are "fair" when they are conducted in
>> accord with the law and (when challenged) pass muster with the Supreme Court of
>> the United States. Right. And in Iraq, election procedures are "fair" when they are conducted in
accord with the law and (when challenged) pass muster with Saddam Hussein. Saying that US law is better because it complies with US law is not a strong
argument for it. Here's a tip: If you want to argue that A is better than B, you have to use
universal metric, not one which is defined by A itself. >> And unlike certain countries I could name, Americans don't
>> change our head of state every time some descendant of William the Conqueror
>> kicks the bucket. For your information, THAT is "dynastic succession." When the
>> time comes, you're welcome to celebrate the accession of Prince Jug Ears to the
>> throne of Edward the Confessor; as for us, well, we did away with that sh*t in
>> 1776. And I congratulate you for it. However waiting until independence was
granted to us in 1901 was not without its benefits (see below). >> Furthermore, I'd like to ask you when was the last time you cast a ballot for
>> your Prime Minister? Not his/her PARTY, mind, but the MAN. I have never voted for either. I vote for a number of representatives (usually MEN, but
sometimes WOMEN). Most of those people belong to a coalition (a party), and those parties have
stated their intention to vote for a particular person, who (if they win) becomes Prime
Minister. And how about the US? Do you get to vote for THE MAN? I don't think so. You get
to vote in an electoral college, which then uses all their votes for a
particular person (correct me if I'm wrong here, I think this is how it works). Neither of us get to vote for THE MAN. However I have a preferential voting
system, which is less prone to manipulation through vote-splitting. >> And what happens if
>> Howard gets booted as leader by his party in between general elections? Do YOU
>> get to vote for his replacement, or is that replacement selected by some party
>> caucus of MPs? No - his replacement is voted for by all members of parliament in
practice members form coalitions, so by the time it gets to parliament it's a
foregone conclusion. That's the nature of coalitions. No-one is obliged to vote for a member of a coalition (party). Many people
vote for independents. That's their right. >> If the answers to these questions are "never" and "party
>> caucus", then all I can say is, some democracy you've got. No democracy is perfect, but overall I think Australia has a better democracy. If we could just get rid of the union jack out of the corner of the flag,
it would be even better, but it's kind of quaint, and the red touches off the
blue and white quite nicely.
| 
