Talbott Quadrant government and parliament...

hanuman wrote:

TheMonster wrote:It's far better for such people to admit they're clueless and leave the decisions to the adults.

Oh fantastic. Now don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying anything in particular about YOU. But, that is the exact same argument that white people once made about why black people should be denied the vote. It is exactly the same argument that men once made about why women should be denied the vote. It is exactly the same argument that aristocrats once made about why commoners should be denied the vote. In fact, at heart it is exactly the same argument that was once used to justify and rationalise slavery.

It is an argument that says: 'We are better than you, we are superior to you, therefore we know better than you, therefore we have the right to tell you what to do and how to do it, therefore we have the right to reap the benefits and you do not'.

The principle behind Australia's requirement that every eligible citizen should vote, as I understand it, is that a democratic government is a government of consent by the people to be governed, and therefore it is not just the people's RIGHT to vote, but also their DUTY to vote. It places the responsibility for the government's decisions and actions squarely with the citizens of the country.

Now, whether we agree with it or not is really besides the point. It is a perfectly valid interpretation of the principle of consensual government, and the reality of politics and governance in Australia speaks for itself - unlike in the United States, for example, there are very few instances when the government of Australia is plagued by an inability to actually DO its job because of a hung legislature.

It is one way of doing things, among many such ways under the very broad umbrella of democratic systems. It works, and that is what is important.

I would concur that it is a civic duty to vote. I would also concur that it is a privilege which comes with citizenship. The problem with compelling individuals to vote, whether they want to or not, is that you are essentially compelling people who have already self-selected themselves as nonvoters to become voters. The problem is that while you can compel them to vote, you cannot compel them to care about or become educated in the questions upon which they are voting.

In the rare cases where compelling them to vote will lead them to actually seek the knowledge to make informed choices and actually have opinions based on an understanding of issues, this would be a good thing. In the much larger (unfortunately) number of cases in which the compelled voter will simply vote for the one person whose name he actually remembers (for whatever reason), or the candidate who produces the best sound bite (regardless of veracity), or the candidate who claims to represent that voter's interest group (which the candidate may or may not do) all it does (at best) is lumber the electoral process with votes guaranteed to have little thought or analysis behind them. More probably, it provides a base of drones swayed by the popular passion du jour because they are too ill-informed to form opinions of their own. At worst, it provides a base of "voters" particularly subject to manipulation by unscrupulous and dishonest political leaders because their chosen, default position "uninformed, disinterested, and don't care" makes them so much more liable to manipulation by such cretins.

Please do understand here that I totally disapprove of artificial barriers against voting or the free exercise of the franchise by every enfranchised voter. There are definitely times when I believe that obtaining the franchise should require more than a pulse, but once the franchise has been granted, on whatever basis seems best to the society in question, then absolutely unfettered exercise of that franchise becomes an imperative of that society. But those who choose not to vote should most certainly be allowed --- nay, encouraged --- to exercise their non-voting choice.

If you're not sufficiently interested in how your society is run to voluntarily exercise the greatest self-determining privilege in human history, then I don't want your hands anywhere near the controls of my society's future.

Just saying.

hanuman wrote:

TheMonster wrote:It's far better for such people to admit they're clueless and leave the decisions to the adults.

Oh fantastic. Now don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying anything in particular about YOU. But, that is the exact same argument that white people once made about why black people should be denied the vote. It is exactly the same argument that men once made about why women should be denied the vote. It is exactly the same argument that aristocrats once made about why commoners should be denied the vote. In fact, at heart it is exactly the same argument that was once used to justify and rationalise slavery.

Hogwash, balderdash, poppycock, and Bull Schidt! (Jack's son, the rodeo star)

Oh, no, you're not saying I personally am a racist sexist elitist bastard whose arguments are therefore tainted and no one need pay any heed to them. If you did that it would raise the hackles of Duckk or RFC. Instead, you're just saying I'm employing "exactly the same argument" as racist sexist elitist bastards, so no one need pay any heed to them. That's very clever of you.

One tiny flaw in your brilliant analysis though. I have never suggested that anyone should be "denied the vote". I have only said that people who are insufficiently interested in doing a good job of it should not be coerced into doing a bad job of it. On the contrary, I believe that having a broad base of voters of both genders, all ethnicities and economic strata, of diverse backgrounds, is a good thing.

I'd say more, but RFC beat me to it.

Sorry, you are technically correct, however I personally regard Betty in London as the Queen of England not Australia, because of a couple of matters. Firstly she is not an Australian citizen, and secondly when England and Australia meet in battle on the sporting field she barracks for the English and gives them imperial honours on the rare occasion that they win.
On the matter of compulsory voting, it is actually not compulsory, just attendance at the polling booth is. We get a percentage of ballot papers with none of these ****s scrawled across them. I personally like it as otherwise vested interests (usually on the right) get their followers involved and bring in policies that may not be in the best interest of the general population.

TheMonster wrote:

Daryl wrote:The Queen of England through a Governor General is technically our head of state, but has very little true power.

As long as we're being technical about it, there hasn't been a "Queen of England" since Anne (who was also the first "Queen of Great Britain"). There is no more a "Queen of England" or "Queen of Scotland" than there is a "President of New York". or "President of Missouri" (where he happens to be at the moment I type this).



Elizabeth II is your head of state in her role as "Queen of Australia", which is technically not the same thing as "Queen of the United Kingdom", "Queen of New Zealand", "Queen of Canada", "Queen of Jamaica" etc. even though as a practical matter the same person holds all of those titles.

I do believe there has been a time or two that her Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia has taken more than ceremonial role. Kerr's dismissal of the government in '75 comes to mind.

In Honorverse terms, the head of state of the duchy of Harrington on Gryphon happens to be the same person as the head of state of Harrington Steading on Grayson, and the first four names in their respective lines of succession are the same (I beleve if something were to happen to Raul, Katherine, Faith, and James, Sarah would inherit the Manticoran title, but the Grayson title would escheat to the Sword). But they're not the same title, and unless Grayson were to join the Star Empire, there is no possibility that they could be combined into a single title.

runsforcelery wrote:I would concur that it is a civic duty to vote. I would also concur that it is a privilege which comes with citizenship. The problem with compelling individuals to vote, whether they want to or not, is that you are essentially compelling people who have already self-selected themselves as nonvoters to become voters. The problem is that while you can compel them to vote, you cannot compel them to care about or become educated in the questions upon which they are voting.

In the rare cases where compelling them to vote will lead them to actually seek the knowledge to make informed choices and actually have opinions based on an understanding of issues, this would be a good thing. In the much larger (unfortunately) number of cases in which the compelled voter will simply vote for the one person whose name he actually remembers (for whatever reason), or the candidate who produces the best sound bite (regardless of veracity), or the candidate who claims to represent that voter's interest group (which the candidate may or may not do) all it does (at best) is lumber the electoral process with votes guaranteed to have little thought or analysis behind them. More probably, it provides a base of drones swayed by the popular passion du jour because they are too ill-informed to form opinions of their own. At worst, it provides a base of "voters" particularly subject to manipulation by unscrupulous and dishonest political leaders because their chosen, default position "uninformed, disinterested, and don't care" makes them so much more liable to manipulation by such cretins.

Please do understand here that I totally disapprove of artificial barriers against voting or the free exercise of the franchise by every enfranchised voter. There are definitely times when I believe that obtaining the franchise should require more than a pulse, but once the franchise has been granted, on whatever basis seems best to the society in question, then absolutely unfettered exercise of that franchise becomes an imperative of that society. But those who choose not to vote should most certainly be allowed --- nay, encouraged --- to exercise their non-voting choice.

If you're not sufficiently interested in how your society is run to voluntarily exercise the greatest self-determining privilege in human history, then I don't want your hands anywhere near the controls of my society's future.

Just saying.

Mr Weber, as I wrote in my post, there are any number of different ways in which a democratic system of governance can be conducted, some better than others. All of them have their strengths and their weaknesses.

My own country's system is a party-list system, with NO obligation on the voting public to actually participate in the political process. Fortunately, we're still a society in transition, which makes for a politically-active public - even though our elections have thus far resulted in what is for all intents and purposes a one party-state. There are certain dangers in that, which are so obvious that I don't feel the need to articulate them.

My view is that the Australian system is yet another way of conducting the political process, that it works for the most part, and that if that is how Australia wishes to operate, I see no particular problem with that.

The Australian PEOPLE have chosen a particular interpretation of the principle of consensual government. It's not the only possible interpretation, but experience has demonstrated that it is a perfectly valid one. Their society sees the vote not as a privilege but as a duty, and they regard the failure to vote as an offense against society. I'm not sufficiently educated in the intricacies of Australian political science, but that much seems clear enough.

Monster, I see you left out the most relevant part of my post. No matter, I'll quote it for you:

It is an argument that says: 'We are better than you, we are superior to you, therefore we know better than you, therefore we have the right to tell you what to do and how to do it, therefore we have the right to reap the benefits and you do not'.

The passage I quoted above makes it quite clear that I regard the point you made as one that can be used (and unfortunately, often had been used) to exclude others from the political process.

But that is exactly my point. I tried to address the topic under discussion. I refuse to call people names - not because I'm afraid of Duckk, but because I have no RIGHT to do so. I do not know you; I have never had any personal relationship or interactions with you; and therefore I cannot claim to know who you really are or how you really think.

However, at the same time I do have opinions of my own, and I am not shy to make my opinions known. That I criticised one of your posts does not in any way mean that I have any kind of opinion ABOUT YOU as a person, one way or another.

If you do not wish to believe me, please feel free to actually read any of my posts on these forums. I'll even direct you to one in which I rather forcefully (too forcefully, in truth) responded to someone else's position (see 'Marriage in the Honorverse').

runsforcelery wrote:

I would concur that it is a civic duty to vote. I would also concur that it is a privilege which comes with citizenship. The problem with compelling individuals to vote, whether they want to or not, is that you are essentially compelling people who have already self-selected themselves as nonvoters to become voters. The problem is that while you can compel them to vote, you cannot compel them to care about or become educated in the questions upon which they are voting.

In the rare cases where compelling them to vote will lead them to actually seek the knowledge to make informed choices and actually have opinions based on an understanding of issues, this would be a good thing. In the much larger (unfortunately) number of cases in which the compelled voter will simply vote for the one person whose name he actually remembers (for whatever reason), or the candidate who produces the best sound bite (regardless of veracity), or the candidate who claims to represent that voter's interest group (which the candidate may or may not do) all it does (at best) is lumber the electoral process with votes guaranteed to have little thought or analysis behind them. More probably, it provides a base of drones swayed by the popular passion du jour because they are too ill-informed to form opinions of their own. At worst, it provides a base of "voters" particularly subject to manipulation by unscrupulous and dishonest political leaders because their chosen, default position "uninformed, disinterested, and don't care" makes them so much more liable to manipulation by such cretins.

There is always the option to spoil the ballot paper, where voting still uses paper ballot slips.

Maybe there should be a selection named no vote so those who do not wish to vote, but are compelled to, can register their objection to that compulsion.

Personally I wish the British government would adopt compulsory voting, there have been too many instances of governments being elected by less than 50% of the eligible voters because of low turn-out on voting day.


T&R
GJS

Getting back to the original topic, I can see a parallel to a previous comment of mine and the Talbott Quadrant politics. If Queen Elizabeth 111 of Manticore allows that aspect of her being to influence her behaviour as Empress Elizabeth it could cause resentment in the newer members. As I said, even being partisan regarding the sporting field can give the (probably true) impression that some members are more equal than others.

Daryl wrote:Getting back to the original topic, I can see a parallel to a previous comment of mine and the Talbott Quadrant politics. If Queen Elizabeth 111 of Manticore allows that aspect of her being to influence her behaviour as Empress Elizabeth it could cause resentment in the newer members. As I said, even being partisan regarding the sporting field can give the (probably true) impression that some members are more equal than others.

I agree, and it will depend on the situation.
However, that being said, since the majority of the power will be in the Imperial Parliment's hands, her official governmental actions will be limited. Her wishes, on the other hand, and her public statements could very easily sour the Talbotters if those opinion trend against them and more in favor of the Kingdom, not the Empire. I also think certain allowences will be made by the Talbotters because she is naturally going to favor what was origianlly her only domain, even if slightly.

Daryl wrote:Sorry, you are technically correct, however I personally regard Betty in London as the Queen of England not Australia, because of a couple of matters. Firstly she is not an Australian citizen, and secondly when England and Australia meet in battle on the sporting field she barracks for the English and gives them imperial honours on the rare occasion that they win.

Two problems with that :-

[1] She isn't an English citizen either! But then legally speaking neither is anyone else!
[2] Excluding the Order of the Garter, Order of the Thistle, Royal Victorian Order and the Order of Merit, all honours are offered solely on the basis of the sovereign being so advised by her relevant government. So if your complaint is that the Australian cricket team doesn't get knighthoods when they beat the English team, you need to take that up with the Australian government!

I do think it's interesting however that you're using the Tebbit Test to determinate her nationality!

Commodore Oakius wrote:

Daryl wrote:Getting back to the original topic, I can see a parallel to a previous comment of mine and the Talbott Quadrant politics. If Queen Elizabeth 111 of Manticore allows that aspect of her being to influence her behaviour as Empress Elizabeth it could cause resentment in the newer members. As I said, even being partisan regarding the sporting field can give the (probably true) impression that some members are more equal than others.

I agree, and it will depend on the situation.
However, that being said, since the majority of the power will be in the Imperial Parliment's hands, her official governmental actions will be limited. Her wishes, on the other hand, and her public statements could very easily sour the Talbotters if those opinion trend against them and more in favor of the Kingdom, not the Empire. I also think certain allowences will be made by the Talbotters because she is naturally going to favor what was origianlly her only domain, even if slightly.

Guys, yes, the Star Kingdom and the Star Empire are entirely different polities, and so are their governments, in terms of the Star Empire's Constitution. However, the situation is very similar to that of the United Kingdom - although the two governments are different legal entities, they are in fact the same in terms of their makeup. Also, since that is true, the Star Kingdom's government acts as the Star Empire's government for the time being. I haven't seen any indication as yet that Grantville intends to (or already have) appointed any ministers from the Talbott Quadrant to his cabinet - when he does, will they only sit in on meetings dealing with Imperial affairs, or will they attend all meetings of the Grantville cabinet?