|
>> Vietnam was really half assed supported. Tonkin Gulf resolution I beleive it
>> was called. Something dodgy about it too. They also passed the Presidental War
>> Powers Act, which is an affront to everything the Americans once stood for. If
>> Congress won't keep the President in check, then the people should throw them
>> out come election time. But they reelected Nixon. As for him pardoning himself
>> after he was almost the first President to be sent to jail by the Senate (or
>> would have been), he was pardoned. I know you will pursue this further, but I
>> think there should be a pardon power, but only at the consent of
>> Congress/Parliament. OK, so the US president is not supposed to declare war without congressional
approval, but Nixon did it, and killed 55,000 US soldiers in the process. Not a strong argument for the superiority of US democracy over Australian democracy. >> That rubber stamoping is important strawman. If in a Federal election, you
>> voted for Parliament, then separately for a President (hopefully by
>> preferential voting, and not the silly electoral college), results would vary
>> so much. Just look at the 1998 Federal election. Yes, results would vary, but you haven't demonstrated they would be better.
The Australian Prime Minister can be rolled at any time by a parliamentary
majority. The US president can be rolled only by a 2/3 majority and a reason
for impeachment(?). For those in favor of limiting the power of government, which is the better
model? Saying "we have more of a dictatorship, but at least we get to choose our
dictator directly" is not a strong argument. >> Having an executive head doesn't mean a dictatorship if they please. This
>> ignores the separation of powers, which is sorely lacking in Australia. Robert
>> Muldoon once famously quipped he was more powerful than the US President, in
>> the fact he had more control over New Zealand internally as the system of
>> Government allowed. >> Yes, you are probably old enough to remember the 1984 election. was there any
>> need for that? No need, but did it result in poorer democracy or more governmental power? >> As for the bill of rights, I view democracy differently than other people. A
>> mob may be democratic, but it takes away power from other people. Majoritorian
>> is better. If each person can have more control of their own lives, isn't that
>> in turn democratic, that the poeple are enpowered? Interesting. What you call majoratorianism and democracy, I call democracy and freedom. I will however argue that my definition is more common. From dictionary.com:
de?moc?ra?cy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
'Respect for the individual in a community' only gets a small mention, and
'control of their own lives' doesn't get any mention. >> As for Australia being a better democracy, I can assume you are not fond of
>> compulsury voting. Yes, you are right, I'm not fond of that, but on an importance scale of one to
ten I give it about a two. The infringement to my liberties is being made to
turn up to a polling booth and wait in queue like a soviet peasant. When I
actually get the ballot paper, at least I have the option of scrawling G**
F***** across it. An immensely satisfying, if unconstructive exercise.
| 
