Bush approval ratings..

[Troll]

Oh no we aren't! And we've had this conversation on this forum a few times already.

How can we forget that a person who is going to seriously affect our own country in many ways, and many other countries across this globe too, is going to be elected by a bunch of boosters whose collective IQ doesn't exceed their shoe size and simply because he "stands up to the ungodly heathen towelheads". Meanwhile tens of millions of others from that same country exercise their right NOT to vote because there are no candidates they agree with enough or they just couldn't be bothered to roll up to a polling place on the day. So do we appreciate this? What do YOU think!

You're damn lucky we in the rest of the world AREN'T voting! The incumbent in the Whitehouse would be somewhat different, I suspect, if we did.

Well just remember, you have to vote for an American so John Howard, the guy you guys voted for, can't run.

 

[Zep]

Sure. Like for instance, look at Russia's track record, and Serbia, and Britain, and Germany, and.......

By the way, just for the hell of it, show me a country that has a 100% voter turnout. Oh, and show me one that has never elected a leader it didn't end up disliking.

Australia's voting turnout is regularly 95% plus. Our elections are mandatory for voters. So whatever morons get into Parliament here, at least the majority of everyone voted for them. This makes our candidates work on real issues to get all our votes (they can't afford to buy off all 20 million of us). Big cheer squads, funny hats and buttons and balloon parties just don't cut it.

And Australia is not the only country with mandatory voting, btw.

 

[Zep]

Well just remember, you have to vote for an American so John Howard, the guy you guys voted for, can't run.

Medication time...

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Australia's voting turnout is regularly 95% plus. Our elections are mandatory for voters. So whatever morons get into Parliament here, at least the majority of everyone voted for them. This makes our candidates work on real issues to get all our votes (they can't afford to buy off all 20 million of us). Big cheer squads, funny hats and buttons and balloon parties just don't cut it.

And Australia is not the only country with mandatory voting, btw.

Zep, I'm asking this out of curiosity. The concept of compulsory voting is too foreign for me to understand. How do they enforce that?

 

[Zep]

Take heart, Zep.

So far, I'm not overly impressed with any of the dem candidates out there, but I'll tell you this:

I'm going to vote for which ever one of them wins their ticket.

Honestly, I don't really care if the next US president is left/right/Rep/Dem/emerald-Green. As long as it isn't GWB and his crowd of sycophantic pinheads who like to play guns and pay off their mates and ruin their own and a number of other countries. How to Lose Friends and Influence People...

On a personal note, I was truly surprised that Colin Powell got mixed up with that bunch. A few years ago I thought he was head-and-shoulders above them all in class, intelligence, ability and political savvy, even if he was right-wing. My view of him from here today is of someone very reluctantly toeing the boss's political line because it is personally expedient to do so. What a waste...

 

[Zep]

Zep, I'm asking this out of curiosity. The concept of compulsory voting is too foreign for me to understand. How do they enforce that?

Easiest way is to refer you to some pages from The Australian Electoral Commission, the body responsible for actually conducting our major elections.
Compulsory enrolment
Compulsory Voting

Interesting reading contained therein, inclduing arguments against compulsory voting!

 

[Zep]

SFG, the penalties for not voting (see section 6) aren't very severe, but then we can usually be counted on to be tightwads, and want to keep the folding money for a beer or three after voting.

 

[Troll]

Medication time...

I don't know if it's time for your meds or not. Read the lable, it should tell ya.

I was just merely stating that you'd have to vote for an American and as thus Howard couldn't be elected. Rather obvious, really.

Just out of curiousity, how can you ensure informed voter opinion among the voters with mandatory voting? I'm not saying the way you guys do it it messed up or anything, perhaps you all tend to take the task more seriously than most Americans do. But I rather like the US way because the ones that bother to vote usually have more interest and knowledge pertaining to the choices of candidates. Mandatory voting here would probably make what happened in Florida more commonplace as the masses tried to change their votes after not knowing what the hell they were doing the first time.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

I don't know if it's time for your meds or not. Read the lable, it should tell ya.

I was just merely stating that you'd have to vote for an American and as thus Howard couldn't be elected. Rather obvious, really.

Just out of curiousity, how can you ensure informed voter opinion among the voters with mandatory voting? I'm not saying the way you guys do it it messed up or anything, perhaps you all tend to take the task more seriously than most Americans do. But I rather like the US way because the ones that bother to vote usually have more interest and knowledge pertaining to the choices of candidates. Mandatory voting here would probably make what happened in Florida more commonplace as the masses tried to change their votes after not knowing what the hell they were doing the first time.

First, I have to disagree with the statement about those who bother to vot ein the US. I know MANY people who don't vote because we have a representative democray which means that the popular vote is only marginally important at best. If we were to eliminate the electoral college, chances are, voter turnout would be hihger. This is only a guess, mind you. I do not have any facts to back it up, so please don't ask for any.

As for the idea of the "Florida problem" becomming more common place if we were to have compulsory elections; maybe. It's a fairly easy situation to fix, though. Create a federally standardized ballot and spend about 1 -2 class periods in high-school teaching the students how to read and use the foolish thing.

 

[Zep]

I was just merely stating that you'd have to vote for an American and as thus Howard couldn't be elected. Rather obvious, really.

Howard WAS elected. He stood for one of the electorates in my state and beat the other candidates standing. His party happened to have the majority of seats in Parliament so they formed the government of the day. His party mates thought he would be the best leader for them in the Parliament, so he became Prime Minister. He is NOT our head of state, just the Prime Minister of the government (much as he would like to be otherwise ). Our HoS is actually the Queen of England, but that's another story for another thread...

Just out of curiousity, how can you ensure informed voter opinion among the voters with mandatory voting? I'm not saying the way you guys do it it messed up or anything, perhaps you all tend to take the task more seriously than most Americans do. But I rather like the US way because the ones that bother to vote usually have more interest and knowledge pertaining to the choices of candidates. Mandatory voting here would probably make what happened in Florida more commonplace as the masses tried to change their votes after not knowing what the hell they were doing the first time.

This stuff from The Australian Electoral Commission explains it fairly well.

Arguments used in favour of compulsory voting:

* voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform eg taxation, compulsory education, jury duty
* teaches the benefits of political participation
* Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate"
* governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management
* candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll
* the voter isn’t actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.

Arguments used against compulsory voting:

* it is undemocratic to force people to vote - an infringement of liberty
* the "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls
* it may increase the number of "donkey votes"
* it may increase the number of informal votes
* it increases the number of safe, single-member electorates - political parties then concentrate on the more marginal electorates
* resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.

 

[Zep]

As for the idea of the "Florida problem" becomming more common place if we were to have compulsory elections; maybe. It's a fairly easy situation to fix, though. Create a federally standardized ballot and spend about 1 -2 class periods in high-school teaching the students how to read and use the foolish thing.

By comparison, all Australian voting is still paper-based. Well into the 21st century! *SIGH* I would have thought that SOME sort of acceptable electronic voting system could have been designed and put into use by now, but hey...I'm a computer boffin, so guess where my head's at!

 

[Ed]

This:

is off, too.

It is a valid comment by Judith.

And an absurd question by Ed:

against the world, against U.N., the American public supports a wasteful and murderous war for oil in Iraq, with "...shallower and more shortsighted..." slogans than facts:

.) WMDs in Iraq;

.) Al-Qaeda link to Iraq;

.) nuclear link between Niger and Iraq;

.) 'liberation' of Iraq.

That is truely an excellent answer, really, I mean it. The problem is that it has nothing to do with my question. Perhaps if you re-read it it would appear less absurd to you. The problem is, I fear, that you are funneling everything into a one note world view.

 

[Ed]

Incidentally, it IS possible for the vast majority of us out here to appreciate that there is a VAST difference (and probably little connection) between the words and actions of the current US presidential incumbent and the US population and economy. As Mr Bush will come to appreciated when the US population sinks their collective No12 boot into him next year. Put simply, they won't care who wins, as long as it isn't him.

I fear that he has pretty much won already. If the Dems run Dean it will, IMHO, well and truely be over.

 

[The Fool]

He is NOT our head of state, just the Prime Minister of the government (much as he would like to be otherwise ). Our HoS is actually the Queen of England, but that's another story for another thread...

No Zep, lets sort this out in this thread...The fool is a staunch constitutional monarchist and will not have leftie anarchists such as you denigrating HM Queen Elizabeth II ......Queen of Australia.

We have a queen, she is the Queen of Australia, luckily she is also the queen of GBr and THEY feed and house her and her inbred family....what better deal could a nation have? All the advantages of a constitutional monarchy without all the vet bills for the mauled Corgis.

And Our Head of state is the Governor General, An Australian, not QEII.... Although I agree with you that Howard muscles in on all the good opening ceremonies....

 

[BTox]

How can we forget that a person who is going to seriously affect our own country in many ways, and many other countries across this globe too, is going to be elected by a bunch of boosters whose collective IQ doesn't exceed their shoe size and simply because he "stands up to the ungodly heathen towelheads".

Oh, so only people with low IQs support Bush and only because of the war? It's this kind of simplistic and vapid rhetoric that causes these threads to quickly degenerate into ad homs.

Meanwhile tens of millions of others from that same country exercise their right NOT to vote because there are no candidates they agree with enough or they just couldn't be bothered to roll up to a polling place on the day. So do we appreciate this? What do YOU think!

And this has been brought up several times in the past and continues to be irrelevant. The fact is at this point in time, a majority of people in the U.S. (currently more than 60%) approve of his job as POTUS.

You're damn lucky we in the rest of the world AREN'T voting! The incumbent in the Whitehouse would be somewhat different, I suspect, if we did.

Well, you don't vote and never will. I suspect Americans voting in other countries might also result in different heads of state. So what's your point?