[LINK] Why Electronic Voting?
Craig Sanders
cas at taz.net.au
Sat Nov 18 08:45:36 AEDT 2006
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 09:40:52PM +1100, Kim Holburn wrote:
> On 2006/Nov/17, at 2:56 PM, Stewart Fist wrote:
> >I think there is perhaps a place for participatory democracy in some
> >strictly-limited areas of policy, but if you look at the success and
> >failures of the Proposition system in California, the damage done to
> >some of the State's institutions has largely offsets any value they
> >may have had in other ways.
> >
> >The winner of any participatory democracy race is the media and media
> >moguls. These messengers are the only ones who can exert enough
> >influence over voters to determine the winners and losers.
when i was younger and sillier, i used to think that participatory democracy
would be a good idea, but that was when i still (foolishly) believed that most
people were rational and considered well their decisions....when, in fact,
they are mostly driven by the media.
i don't think even constitutional safeguards against populist abuses
(e.g. institutionalised persecution of minorities) would be enough to
make participatory democracy worth the risk.
> > I had the same concerns over the idea of the popular elections of a
> > President in the Republic debate. It would have been won by Alan
> > Jones or John Laws, funded by Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch (or
> > both).
>
> I always preferred the idea of an elected president for Australia and
> so I think did a lot of Australians but I think to work, it would
i was (and remain) against the idea of a direct popularly elected
president for australia, primarily because:
1. as Stewart said, we'd end up with Alan Jones or John Laws or Steve
Vizard or some other populist rabble-rouser, capable of whipping up mob
panic and hysteria. Cronulla riots as a routine part of the australian
political landscape, anyone?
2. we'd end up with an elected King, who thought he had a "mandate" to
do things, instead of just sign off on what the Parliament decided. we'd
be replacing a constitutional monarchy (with severely limited, almost
nonexistent, powers for royalty) with an actual, 4-year long, monarchy.
the American Presidency is an excellent example of what we don't want or
need in this country - especially now, with Bush.
> As long as we get to change the government regularly I'm not sure it
> really matters. They all seem to get just as corrupt when they've
> been in office a while.
yes, which is exactly why we don't want a president who thinks he has a
mandate, rather we want one who knows that their role is mostly formal
and symbolic.
(and yes, there is a need for a presidential veto power....but that
should be a rare and catastrophic event resulting in the automatic
resignation of the president and a double-dissolution. i.e. the veto
power is there, but it costs too much to use lightly)
craig
--
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
More information about the Link
mailing list