The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: jaydub on December 11, 2007, 08:12:11 pm
-
Somehow, in my primary education days Down Under, I managed to miss any reference to a rebellion that occurred in 1854 against England. It may have been that my school, being in the tradition of English Boys' Public education, didn't think that was something I needed to worry about. Or I could have been considering the likelihood of getting my face pounded in at recess. Regardless, a random messageboard post elsewhere implied that its likely that Australia will cease being a Commonwealth nation and become an independent republic - and that when that comes to pass the Union Jack in the canton will be replaced by the Eureka Stockade banner, thus:
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:pUhHOZBQR640jM:http://www.australianflyingcorps.org/2004_2002/images/heraldry/eureka.gif)
It seems to me the overall design would be sort of redundant then, since the Southern Cross is already on the fly of the flag - but anyway, has anyone heard of the Aussies really being serious about independence?
-
Somehow, in my primary education days Down Under, I managed to miss any reference to a rebellion that occurred in 1854 against England. It may have been that my school, being in the tradition of English Boys' Public education, didn't think that was something I needed to worry about. Or I could have been considering the likelihood of getting my face pounded in at recess. Regardless, a random messageboard post elsewhere implied that its likely that Australia will cease being a Commonwealth nation and become an independent republic - and that when that comes to pass the Union Jack in the canton will be replaced by the Eureka Stockade banner, thus:
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:pUhHOZBQR640jM:http://www.australianflyingcorps.org/2004_2002/images/heraldry/eureka.gif)
It seems to me the overall design would be sort of redundant then, since the Southern Cross is already on the fly of the flag - but anyway, has anyone heard of the Aussies really being serious about independence?
Hopefully they have better luck than the welsh. The welsh separatist parties don't really get much action in elections so far as I can tell from reading the news over there. PLAID CYMRU!
-
We had a referendum on becoming a republic nearly a decade ago now (or maybe even more) and it was defeated. The new PM has suggested we might have another one but I don't know how likely it is to go through.
While there's a definite feeling of independance from england here it's not really rabid enough thatpeople are protesting in the streets demanding we become a republic, as in most things I just don't think most Aussies care enough. Also it would mean we couldn't kick ass at the commonwealth games.
Also I doubt that would end up on our flag, at least I hope not.
Shame on you for not knowing about the stockade though Jaydub, but then I guess I was being educated in melbourne around that age and it happened near there so it's a bit more into their local history.
-
Consider me chastened. I know all about Ned Kelly though!
-
jay, do you still have Australian citizenship, or did you relinquish it to become American as a kid?
-
Consider me chastened. I know all about Ned Kelly though!
Hey, I just read a book about him!
-
Hey, I just read a book about him!
One of my friends is studying in Canberra and was tellin' us about him. Craaaaazy. He also told us about the Aussie guy who murdered tons of hitchhikers and buried them in a national forest.
-
jay, do you still have Australian citizenship, or did you relinquish it to become American as a kid?
Its kind of a gray area in my life. I was born in the US, moved there as a 4-year old and was technically there long enough to become naturalised - but no paper was ever filed and the issue never really came up until I was an adult. I suppose if I ever decided to take a job there I would owe penalties for skipping elections over the last 20 years.
-
Heath Ledger played Ned Kelly in 2003 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277941/)
Its kind of a gray area in my life. I was born in the US, moved there as a 4-year old and was technically there long enough to become naturalised - but no paper was ever filed and the issue never really came up until I was an adult. I suppose if I ever decided to take a job there I would owe penalties for skipping elections over the last 20 years.
So, voting is compulsory? That sucks.
Also, could someone lay out for me how commonwealth nations are dependent on the Crown? I don't understand it. Y'all have your own elected officials, militaries, and laws, right? How would independence change things for you?
-
Well that's kind of the argument against it I guess.
It's (more or less) a purely ceremonial thing. That said we do still have a Governer General, this is a position appointed by the Prime Minister but who acts as a representative of the Queen. In theory they are the ones who allow a Prime Minister to form government and can dissolve a parliament/dismiss a prime minister etc. It's kind of like a president but if their only job was to keep tabs on congress rather than being the leader of the country.
Actually when I said it's just ceremonial that wasn't entirely true, Australia's prime minister Gough Whitlam was dismissed by the GG back in the late 70s, so there are real world powers there, they are just rarely exercised.
-
It looks like being Australia's PM is less corrosive to one's health than being the President of the US. Whitlam's still alive (contemporary of Gerald Ford), as are all four of his successors and the new guy.
-
So, voting is compulsory? That sucks.
Voting itself isn't compulsory. It's compulsory to turn up to a polling booth on election day and get your name crossed off the electoral roll. You don't have to actually vote. Anyway, I think that having compulsory voting tends to make the average person more politically aware, because if you have to walk to a polling booth, hey, you may as well make your vote count instead of turning in a blank ballot or donkey voting. Even if you don't show up they only fine you like fifty bucks or something.
-
Yeah, I know a guy who moves town every few years and has never bothered registering to vote. They're not exactly the narc squad or anything in hunting these guys down.
Compulsory voting ain't so bad, it means the zealot crowd doesn't have quite so much influence though to a certain extent I guess it means people also think less about who they vote for.
-
Perhaps, but isn't attaching a cost to a non-vote the same as attaching a price to a vote? If a vote has value, don't you automatically make it susceptible to corruption?
-
I'm not sure fining someone for not voting is the same as giving a vote value.
Anyway it would be more accurate to say that it gives going to the trouble of hauling your ass to a voting booth and back value since how you vote has no influence on the fine so long as you do vote.
-
I'm not sure fining someone for not voting is the same as giving a vote value.
Anyway it would be more accurate to say that it gives going to the trouble of hauling your ass to a voting booth and back value since how you vote has no influence on the fine so long as you do vote.
Here's how my logic works: assume I am an Australian who doesn't want to vote. Still, though, I have to at least show up at the polls or face some kind of civil sanction. Since I <have> to go, and that creates a cognitive disincentive to stay home, and I would be fined for not going, which creates a financial disincentive to stay home, I would say that this system has created a "voter" who is probably more vulnerable to some kind of corruption - selling votes, giving up their identity for a price to allow someone to cast a vote on their behalf, or possibly even the mobilizing of dissatisfied non-voters to cast nuisance votes since they have no option not to spend the time to at least go to the polls.
I just think that if you truly want to allow your populace the full value of their franchise, not exercising it should be an enshrined right.
Just my opinion, though.
-
Here's how my logic works: assume I am an Australian who doesn't want to vote. Still, though, I have to at least show up at the polls or face some kind of civil sanction. Since I <have> to go, and that creates a cognitive disincentive to stay home, and I would be fined for not going, which creates a financial disincentive to stay home, I would say that this system has created a "voter" who is probably more vulnerable to some kind of corruption - selling votes, giving up their identity for a price to allow someone to cast a vote on their behalf, or possibly even the mobilizing of dissatisfied non-voters to cast nuisance votes since they have no option not to spend the time to at least go to the polls.
I just think that if you truly want to allow your populace the full value of their franchise, not exercising it should be an enshrined right.
Just my opinion, though.
I think that compulsory voting is a great idea. When we live in a country where more fugs vote for fuck*ng American Idol than in a presidential election? That's fuck*ng pathetic.
Also, I am sad because today is my day off, yet I involuntarily awoke early. WTF.
-
I can buy the agument that there being a penalty for not voting makes someone swapping their identity more likely if there were no penalty for not showing but apart from that I don't think nonsense votes are a substantial strain on the voting counting system and it actually decreases the possibility of identity theft or at least increases the liklihood it will be discovered. For instance: if you know a particular person isn't going to vote in the US (and some years and I imagine in some areas the odds are pretty good) you could walk in and claim there identity and it might never be discovered, over here that the person will vote is almost certain and will raise a red flag when it the rolls are compared and it is discovered that a particular person has apparently voted twice.
It's not an issue I feel particularly strongly about and I'm sure our countries vary mainly because of tradition as much as anything else but compuslory voting makes sense to me.
-
I think that compulsory voting is a great idea. When we live in a country where more fugs vote for fuck*ng American Idol than in a presidential election? That's fuck*ng pathetic.
Also, I am sad because today is my day off, yet I involuntarily awoke early. WTF.
At least those that vote for American Idol also watched the show and cast something of an informed vote.
Complulsory voting is an absolutely terrible idea at all levels of election if everyone HAD to vote - think about it, even when those of us who try to keep up go to the polls, there are still (at least here and in Chicago) more than 30 different things to make a decision on, from local ordinance amendments to school board members to the water board and etc...I am fairly informed but I can't tell you anything about the people running for 'Family Court Magistrate" or City Auditor.
I imagine that many people's level of uninformedness rivals mine. At least, I like to think that...my point is, there are too many things on the ballot anymore and compulsory voting would make even worse a mess of it by forcing people into a booth to punch random holes in a piece of cardboard.
-
Do you actually have to vote, or just show up? I certainly leave a lot of the answers blank when I vote. In Australia, would they check?
-
Well, just to play the Devil's Advocate here... I sure as shit would rather go to jail or be fined than be forced to watch American Idol so that I could vote for it in an informed manner and so... on that level... I get if other people feel the same damned way about the political process.
Way I reckon it, if you choose to divest yourself of the political process, that's your business... I just think that those people have less of a right to complain than I do as a voter (and hell, I don't even vote in all the local elections) when the whole thing goes down the shitter.
I certainly have no right to complain when Anorexic Bitch #8 is the American Idol instead of Anorexic Bitch #4 and claim none.
As long as these things are made clear, I think we'll be okay.
-
Do you actually have to vote, or just show up? I certainly leave a lot of the answers blank when I vote. In Australia, would they check?
Just show up and get your name crossed off the list. When the rolls are reviewed, if your name didn't get crossed off, supposedly you get fined. I wonder how moving from one district to another is handled.
I leave stuff blank on the ballot as well, in sympathy for those who do care about that issue. I figure their signal has a better chance of rising above the noise that way. I'm with AD in having little use for some types of elective office. Better that a higher level, elected official be responsible for appointing them, and then shouldering the blame if they make a bad choice.
The corollary there is that the voters have to pay enough attention to connect Mr Mayor to the embezzling City Auditor or Water District Potentate or Dogcatcher. No one said democracy was supposed to be easy.
-
Do you actually have to vote, or just show up? I certainly leave a lot of the answers blank when I vote. In Australia, would they check?
Thank god I'm not the only one who does this. I feel guilty, but unless I feel very confident that I'm highly educated on an issue, I don't feel comfortable voting.
-
I vote against every judge, besides that I will leave it blank.
-
Thank god I'm not the only one who does this. I feel guilty, but unless I feel very confident that I'm highly educated on an issue, I don't feel comfortable voting.
Yeah, I feel kind of bad too. But I'd feel worse voting without really knowing enough. And I've determined conclusively that they don't take points off...
I personally have no problem with a rule like the Australian one that makes showing up mandatory. But it's clearly un-American. It would just never fit in to our culture. Obviously what would work for us instead is voting by phone while watching the candidate debates.
-
I vote against every judge, besides that I will leave it blank.
If I don't have anything better to do that day, I go and vote for my mom as a write in candidate for every office. I think if I get some more people in on the game, shell end up the town commissioner of traffic or something. I'm sure shed just love that.
Also, yes attaching a fine to not voting is the same as attaching a price to voting. From the economist perspective, attaching a fine just greater than the cost associated with voting (missing a couple hours of work, waiting in line, not getting your hair done, dealing with old people) would increase voter turn out. However the model would show that the fine wouldn't capture those that value their time the highest like highly educated wage earning tax payers, but would capture most of those who place relatively little value on their time, like minimum wage earners and the elderly.
In the end, on a purely academic front, Im not totally against the old system where you got a receipt for your vote that you could sell directly the political party or candidate.
-
And this, I think, is where pure market forces type thinking drops the ball. Selling a thing can inherently change its value, sending a message that, ultimately, we don't want to send.
-
And this, I think, is where pure market forces type thinking drops the ball. Selling a thing can inherently change its value, sending a message that, ultimately, we don't want to send.
Im just saying, these guys spend hundreds of dollars per voter, thousands in some areas. Instead of running hate ads and photo stunts, lets hand that money to the voter.
-
Ahh, I think I'm seeing one of the reasons for the differences here.
When voting over here it's generally to elect local members, senators and local council members. We don't have a long list of a few different laws to vote on nor do we vote on judges or similar. That's what we're paying the MPs to do.
Basically over here you vote once every four years there's the federal election where you vote for 1) your local member, and 2) senators for your state.
In both cases you can just nominate your number 1 preferred or you can number them in order, that's normally about 7 total for local members and about 50 or so for the senate.
Then again every 3 or 4 years, but on a different cycle than the federal election we do a similar thing for local concil members. The only time we vote on specific laws is when a referendum is held (for instance a few years ago there was one on whether or not we should become a republic)
So I guess you guys have more specific input thatn we do, if you choose to.
-
"But wait... when do you vote for your president?" I think a lot of people in America would be shocked to learn how many of the countries we think are like us are different in things like... not voting directly for the president/prime minister/number one dude or dudette. For that matter, what would life be like if the Electoral College worked the way it was supposed to, rather than the bastardized formality it has become?
-
Hehe yeah.
Basically if you guys just voted for your congress and senators and let them figure out the rest, that would be pretty close.
-
"But wait... when do you vote for your president?" I think a lot of people in America would be shocked to learn how many of the countries we think are like us are different in things like... not voting directly for the president/prime minister/number one dude or dudette. For that matter, what would life be like if the Electoral College worked the way it was supposed to, rather than the bastardized formality it has become?
I think it stopped being a formality when GWB lost the popular vote and still became president.
There is a movement to organize a coalition of states that will sign an agreement to throw their electoral college votes at whoever wins the popular election - Because sometimes that doesn't happen, and it would be nice to have that down on paper. I am for this. I am also for a national primary date as opposed to this cockeyed system of BS.