Blogcritics Comments on Taking Democracy Seriously

Comment by CHUN23 on Taking Democracy Seriously

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:50:04 EDT

We have all brands of Mobile Phones,Ipods,Sidekicks,Nextels phone,Laptops,Plasma Tv,LCD,Flat screen for sell at cheap and affordable prices, they ranges from Nokia/Samsung/LG/Sony Ericsson/Motorola/Alcatel/panasonic With Bluetooth, all Brands and Models of Nextel Phones,we want you to get back to us with your quote so that we can begin a good business relationship.

Comment by Victor Plenty on Taking Democracy Seriously

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:39:36 EDT

Put some teeth in this! Vote, or lose your citizenship and get deported. Forget the namby-pamby parking ticket fines. Don't worry, I'm only serious. It would be fun to see how the xenophobic anti-immigrant crowd would react to such a proposal. Might distract them from all their efforts to make everybody irrationally scared of the Arabs and the Hispanics, even as they hide behind an ostentatious claim of concern for the rule of law. But getting back to these proposals, which we could start referring to as the Hirschhorn Plan, I think they'd stand a fair chance of revitalizing participatory democracy in the United States. Of course, that's exactly why they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting passed. The last thing today's ruling class ever wants to see is a resurgence of truly participatory governance. The only thing they want us to vote on is who gets to "win" the next season of American Idol, and they'd probably prefer it if the great unwashed could be excluded from having any influence over that, too.

Comment by jaz on Taking Democracy Seriously

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:31:57 EDT

fair dinkum, cobber

Comment by STM on Taking Democracy Seriously

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:13:11 EDT

Jaz ... which makes you a democracy as well, supposedly in the truest sense of the word. We ARE being picky today aren't we. I get three points back for that.

Comment by jaz on Taking Democracy Seriously

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:04:46 EDT

ummm...sorry to be picky...but the U.S. has NEVER been a democracy we're a representative Republic...thank you very much...elected with democratic process minus five from your term paper, Stan heh

Comment by STM on Taking Democracy Seriously

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:53:45 EDT

BTW Joel, as I've expressed to other commentators, I agree with the premise that America is no longer a genuine democracy ... it's now just an amorphous political system that exists only for those who can afford to subsidise or lobby politicians - many of whom want the power and prestige that goes with public office but not the responsibility that goes with truly representing their constituents.

Comment by jaz on Taking Democracy Seriously

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:11:06 EDT

for troll in #19 imo, ANY -ism, -ology or hyphenated-American is bullshit that's why it's called Reason... but i digress

Comment by troll on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:03:56 EDT

dead bears

Comment by STM on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:55:04 EDT

Calling Clavos: mate, with summer coming up, would you like me to send you your very own genuine Slouchie, BTW? There would be only one caveat - don't wear the bastard with the side folded up.

Comment by STM on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:49:40 EDT

Blows what? Or who?

Comment by troll on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:36:03 EDT

Nationalism Blows

Comment by STM on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:21:59 EDT

Yes, I agree totally. It's what constitutes time of need that's always the bugbear, though.

Comment by Sisyphus on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:21:08 EDT

Clavos: "That, and helping in the defense of your country (assuming real need), are the two most important obligations of citizens in free societies, IMO." Yes, comparing mandatory voting to the draft is an interesting analogy.

Comment by Clavos on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:56:22 EDT

One of those is to vote That, and helping in the defense of your country (assuming real need), are the two most important obligations of citizens in free societies, IMO.

Comment by STM on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:42:09 EDT

And I'll add to this ... my view on compulsory voting and the benefits: democracy isn't just a right, it's a privelege, and carries certain responsibilities in return. One of those is to vote.

Comment by STM on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:40:46 EDT

Clav: What does happen with mandatory voting is that the two main parties are less polarised. They don't have to manufacture issues to get the attention of voters. Voting is also preferential, rather than first past the post ... the Liberals are at the bottom of the pile on my ballot card when I vote. That means you can have two choices: if I want to register a protest vote, I'll vote for an independent or another party that will at least give its preferences to Labor, so I know it hasn't been wasted in the final wash-up. Yes, people do become more informed about the political process - but they become more informed about the real issues rather than things that have been manufactured to win votes. You also don't have to vote. You can go to a polling station, have your name crossed off the electoral list as having voted, and put in an informal vote if you wish. It's not a perfect system, but it works for us. Can't see it happening in the US, though, what with all those arguments about Constitutional rights, 1st amendments and the like :)

Comment by Jonathan Scanlan on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:53:38 EDT

In my honest opinion, mandatory voting should really be coupled with a preferential system. If you have a "no vote" box at the bottom, then voting is just a nuisance for those less interested. However if you have preferences, then that means that people can either drop it in the box without ticking anything, or their vote can count when their particular candidate doesn't actually get through. From what I've seen, this leaves the public weighing up different parties and politicians in comparison. And it means that the major parties have to compete for the prefs of the minors.

Comment by moonraven on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:36:33 EDT

Nobel Laureate José Saramago wrote a book a couple years ago called AN ESSAY ON LUCIDITY--in which folks voted in blank en masse. They called new elections and it just continued to happen. A very interesting read by a writer with an uncommon grasp of politics.

Comment by Clavos on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:00:45 EDT

@#10: Agree on both your points, troll (!!)

Comment by troll on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:56:54 EDT

I (almost) would go for mandatory participation if 'none of the above' were put on all ballots as suggested by the author as a meaningful option requiring a new nomination process and re-vote if 'none of the above' gets the majority of votes... further - IMO mandatory participation is desirable as it would clarify a 'no vote' as an act of civil disobedience

Comment by Clavos on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:24:50 EDT

Mandatory voting almost guarantees a less informed vote. Or it might stimulate the public to become more informed and take a greater interest. Either way, it will tend to reduce the effect of a small group forcing their agenda on the entire population.

Comment by Sisyphus on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:05:03 EDT

"Does Aussie mandatory voting also mandate who one votes for, too?" Of course not, which is sort of my point. Forced voting doesn't equate to a more informed electorate. On the contrary, where voting is voluntary, at least theoretically, the voters have an interest in the issues and candidates or they wouldn't be voting. Mandatory voting almost guarantees a less informed vote.

Comment by Clavos on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:22:41 EDT

After all, mandatory voting resulted in the Aussies' current PM, John Howard. I rest my case. :) Does Aussie mandatory voting also mandate who one votes for, too?

Comment by Sisyphus on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:04:13 EDT

Yes, voting is mandatory in Australia, where politics and politicians are no better than in the U.S. After all, mandatory voting resulted in the Aussies' current PM, John Howard. I rest my case. :)

Comment by Mohjho on Taking Democracy Seriously

Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:45:06 EDT

Didn't Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin implement mandatory voting?