Howard - it's time!
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
I agree with you on one point - fixed terms are probably more desirable than the current situation in Australia. Whether that be 3 years, 4 years, or even 5 (as it is in Britain) is another question.
True that we don't directly elect our leaders, but I still think it's a better system than the American one... and, for all intents and purposes, we know who we're voting for anyhow (yes there could be hypothetical situations where this didn't occur, but convention dictates that they wouldn't occur.) Anyway, I prefer the idea of electing a party rather than an individual. Takes a bit of focus off personality and charisma.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
kickit2me 
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Sai Yok Noi
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Howard or Rudd??? What a choice!!!
Glad I don't have to.
_________________
"And that effort by Ezard was pathetic" - Don Scott. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| member34258 wrote: | It needs 4 year terms stui. A mandatory start and finish time, not elections called on the whim of a leader who thinks he/she can win.
And of course the leader does not have an electorate as all Australia is hi/her electorate.
Yes, if you have gone for the top job then after your time is up you retire and therefore am not a hindrance to the new guy.
No problem with the party winning power continually. Thats what makes the American system better than ours. The opposing sides must make concessions to get anything done. Balance. |
I'm with you on the fixed term. Agree completely.
On the mandatory retirement of a leader after 2 terms, I'll chew that over. I see it as having benefits and drawbacks.
On the popular electing of a leader, I'm with David, I prefer our system of electing local members rather than just having a personality contest otherwise you have the potential to end up with shallow figureheads with no idea how to govern.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think you should have a good look at local members, on all sides, and then ask yourself, do we really want these people deciding our leader?
I prefer to have the people elect our leader. After all, most leaders elected under the present system are done so by back room factional deals. How is that better than us electing someone? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| member34258 wrote: | I think you should have a good look at local members, on all sides, and then ask yourself, do we really want these people deciding our leader?
I prefer to have the people elect our leader. After all, most leaders elected under the present system are done so by back room factional deals. How is that better than us electing someone? |
Not much difference in the end. Political parties are only going to choose the leader they think has best chance of winning, basically same thing happens in the US... you end up with one Democrat and one Republican. The people don't get to choose which two end up in those positions, do they? (I'm not really up on the American political system)
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| member34258 wrote: | I think you should have a good look at local members, on all sides, and then ask yourself, do we really want these people deciding our leader?
I prefer to have the people elect our leader. After all, most leaders elected under the present system are done so by back room factional deals. How is that better than us electing someone? |
Not the ideal system I agree, but at least they are choosing a leader from within their ranks who they think has a clue as opposed to a public popularity contest over who has the most charisma and best speech writers.
That's also why this election will be closer than the polls make it because the polls ask about preferred prime minister whereas when people vote they consider more than national issues.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
