Kingdoms and Governments.

[TheShinje]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=slategray]I've been thinking about various types of Government, and what makes them tick, and what makes them fail... I have three main points ot discuss although I don't intendon limiting this thread to them, heh.[/color][/size][/font]

[b][font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]A: Can a Monarchy Truly be Democratic?[/color][/size][/font][/b]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]Do you think a Monarchy is a truly 21st century way to go about government? and do you think an institution such as the British Empire can truly claim to be Democratic?[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]I ask this because, while britons can elect their Prime Minister, they have no say in who their head of state is, in an essence, I feel that it could be a [i]staged[/i] democracy, The Prime Minister reports tot he Queen, who cannot be ousted if the regime fails to find favour among it's subjects, they're stuck witht he Windosrs, is it truly Democratic? Can a monarchy of any kingdom claim to be Deomcratic?[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]The british Empire still has "colonies" aroudn the world, including New Zealand and Australia, and we cannot elect our head of State either, it's the Queen, A Prime Minister is another thing altogether, as if to say, here you go, elect your official, but the country's still mine, [i]we still belong to Britian[/i] in an essence.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]Just soemthing I'd like opinions on there.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090][b]B: Does Democracy work anyway?[/b][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]The reason why I ask this is simple, most democratic races are split damn near 50/50, look at USA circa 2000 and the jumbled election, moving that aside, it's painfully clear than almost half the people are going to be dissapointed with the elected official.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]Do you think this subsides over time when the elected official proves themselves, or is there near half a population just bursting to oust them? If that were true then, could Democracy itself be unnervigly, un-Democratic?[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]It seems to me to be a very volatile form of Government, One that assumes that half the people are right most of the time, yeah, i got that form someone's sig ages ago, and I've formed this post around that quote for awhile now, so...[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090][b]C: In your hands, what would be the election process?[/b][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]Would you stay Democratic, Monarchist or would you move for change?[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]A vast majority wins the office in most Democratic countries, and the dictators and Monarchies rule the rest,this is how it seems to be anyhow. But, is there another way ? what would be your Ideal election/hierachy?[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]I'm interested to hear your opinions on these three points, or if you have anything eles to bring to the table as far as Governing systems are concerned.[/color][/size][/font]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Well, the first thing you've got to realize is that the US, Britain, France and similar countries aren't democracies, they're republics. Were they democracies, the voters would vote directly on every single issue that was brought up in the senate/Parliment.

They're republics because they vote people into office whom they believe will vote in their best interests. The Founding Fathers of America feared that an over-abundnce of democracy was bad, as it would lead to chaos, and a tyranny by the majority. (For example, civil rights bills would be incredibly hard to pass if they depeneded souly on a vote of the majority.)

Now, as for Britain, unless I'm mistaken, the royal family doesn't have any political power, and the hereditary House of Lords have very little. (Someone from Britain correct me if I'm wrong.) The vast majority of the political power is weilded by the House of commons, and they are elected by the people.

Democratic republics still work; truer, about fifty percent of America were unhappy with the results of the election of '00, but that's historically uncommon. Usally, races aren't nearly as close. Besides, President Bush is recognized as the legitamate President by America, winning through an election. Monarchies can loose poliical legitamacy very quickly.

The purpose of the monarchy is as a political figurehead and a source of national pride; however, I have read that many Britons are calling for the removal of the monarchy, because of recent scandals that have provided more embarassment for the nation.

I believe I would stick to the American system of elections, but I would probably remove the electoral college. Thus, people are allowed to directly elect their representatives, who in turn will create legislature.[/color][/size][/font]

[Sir Kyle]

[SIZE=1]What DeathBug says is the truth. We are not a true democracy in the best sense of the word but rather, a republic. Like stated before, all these "democratic" countries like the United States and Great Britain and most European nations are republics with democratic elements thrown in.

Democracy, in it's most literal sense, was used in ancient Greece, most notably in the city of Athens. The citizens of the town used direct demorcracy by letting all men (mind you, back in this day women were still viewed as inferior) participate in public office and in juries and voting. Everyone got a shot at being an official and everyone that was a higher up was elected directly by the people. It was a basically a democracy that was nearly completely controlled by the citizens of the town. Not a bad idea in theory, but that kind of democracy is only highly effective in small settings where there isn't a huge disparity in the population.

With a republican type of government, you combine elements of both the old republican governments (a small ruling body made the decisions and such) with elements of democracy (voting and elections of officials) and is best used with large nations. The US and Britain are probably the two most affluent republican nations in the world, both using these methods to keep their countries and if I may say, both nations use democracy fairly well in keeping afloat in the world.

As for the differences in these nation's systems of government, Britain uses a Unitary system of government where the people elect officials straight to the centralized government and then those officials do what they feel is best for their constituents in the government. The central government in the UK is much stronger and is given more power than it is in the United States. In the UK, the majority in the House of Commons (the most powerful branch of their legislature) gets to elect a leader and that leader is the Prime Minister of the country, basically holding comparable power to someone like the US's president. The house then deliberates issues and makes laws much like the United States only things seems to get done faster in Britain than they here due to the intensive party loyality, party voting, and multiple parties vying for power all the time. Also, the local governments in Britain don't hold nearly as much power as the central government or the people in the districts. They are there basically as a conduit for the people to get their voice to the central government, not much more.

The United States, though, is a Federalist type of government that tries to reserve equal power between all levels of government, those once again being the electorate (the people), the local and state governments, and the central government. The people still have a fair amount of power seeing as they directly elect nearly every office holder in the nation (except for President and Vice president) and they have the final say in most issues that affect their area of the nation. The central government also has a lot of power since they are the ones getting to run the whole of the country. This is where the laws are made and carried out, where issues are passed through debate in the legislature and where important executive orders are made that effect the entire country. The basic difference between here and the UK that I seem to get out of this is that the state and local governments here are given more power than the ones in other "Unitary" type republics (which make up the majority of democratic countries). Here, the states are given the power to make certain laws, tax as much or as little as they wish, and basically just run their state however they choose so long as it isn't infringing on any of the basic laws set forth and enforced by the central government. This is effective because it gives the people a lot of choices on how to carry out the events of life but also brings up controversial and intense issues such as abortion and gay rights.

You are going to be hard pressed to find a county that relies solely on democratic principles in decided how their nation is going to be run. Most nations that are using these principles are very large and would be much too unwieldy to leave all the power to the people. This is because A) Not all people care about politics and such and would either not participate in elections and voting to get their voice out. B) Not everyone is competent enough to make a concious and wise decision in terms of who's elected into office (this becomes more important in conjuction with the power of the office in question). C) Issues would never get resolved if people had to vote on every single issue to ever be passed in their nation. It's much easier if there is a panel of elected individuals that is competent and can represent their constituency well. They can accurately vote the way their district would want and would help get issues though the government in a much quicker and easier manner than if everything was directly voted for. This is also good for the people who don't want to travel to the polls everyday to vote on something new. Basically, republics of all different shapes and sizes (from the confederations to the unitarian to the federalists) can be run effectively and efficiently if they are setup in a manner that benefits everyone who lives in the nation. I understand that not everyone is going to be represented in the way all of us would like in a "utopian" style of living, but I believe these type of governments, in the right hands, can be very effective and are very positive ways of living.

Getting away from explanations of types of government and such, I do agree with DeathBug once again on Britan's royal family and monarchical ruling class. In all reality, the royal family has nearly no political sway in the government and are basically there as a figurehead and someone to look up to in the nation. From what I gather, they are the richest landowners in the world as don't ever have to do anything productive with their lives besides charity events and goodwill type functions (what a life, huh?) If I could offer my opinion, though I don't live in the United Kingdom, I'd personally keep the royal family there just for the benefit of having a King or Queen there to figurehead the nation. The monarchy, as I understand it, has been a very influential part of the British history and is a source of national pride. While I don't agree with the mass amount of wealth they possess without doing so much as being born into it, I do agree with the source of pride they bring their country and so, even with the scandals that plauge them, I'd keep things the way they are.

My feelings are almost split on the issue of the electoral college in the electing process with the most powerful offices in the nation. It was a system that was instituted near the beginning of US history and was put in for the sake of electing officals based on the competency of educated individuals rather than the hugely uneducated and surly masses (since that's the way it was back in the early 1800's here in America.) Nowadays, though, people are much better educated and have been known to make many logical and rational decisions having to do with elected officials and it would make sense if the entire college were just thrown out for a true popular election. Still, the electoral college has worked very well over history and has only been a huge issue as of late with the 2000 election. I personally can't think of a better method of electing our president since it makes things much simpler and allows candidates to campaign over broader issues rather than state specific issues. I've heard many theories ranging from throwing it away completely and allowing a direct race where the winner must recieve at least 40% of the vote (thus allowing running room for third and multiple parties rather than just two) to hybrid theories where the citizens work with the college more than they do now and by letting the electoral voters vote however they want rather than by going with the majority, all the way to keeping it the way it is. I'm not expert on politics so I couldn't say which would work best, but I believe keeping the system and letting the citizens get more involved with it would be the best plan of attack.

(WHEW!! That was a mouthful. By the way, I get the information I stated largely from a textbook used in one of my Political Science classes here at the University. It's called "Promise and Performance of American Democracy" by Jon R. Bond, Richard A. Watson, and Kevin B. Smith. ©2001. Also, I injected my opinions and previous knowledge of politics into this little spiel of mine, so don't expect everything to be 100% accurate. It's mostly an opinion afterall.)[/SIZE]

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Well, the first thing you've got to realize is that the US, Britain, France and similar countries aren't democracies, they're republics. Were they democracies, the voters would vote directly on every single issue that was brought up in the senate/Parliment.
[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE]
[font=Verdana][size=1][color=slategray]I didn't realise that, I thought of them as a democracy. Thanks for clearing that up for me DeathBug.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='SirKyle][size=1']My feelings are almost split on the issue of the electoral college in the electing process with the most powerful offices in the nation. It was a system that was instituted near the beginning of US history and was put in for the sake of electing officals based on the competency of educated individuals rather than the hugely uneducated and surly masses (since that's the way it was back in the early 1800's here in America.)[/quote][/size]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=slategray]I had heard of the electoral college playing a part in American Politics, yet I had not fully understood the way in which they were involved.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=slategray]Does this mean that the Electoral Colleges get a bigger slice of the cake in terms of where the votes come from? If a candidate won a popular vote, could the Electoral College swing it around to suit the other candidate? It's been in our press tha people are worried abotut htis happening, moreso, the people looking to oust Bush in the next election.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090][quote name='SirKyle][color=#000000']The monarchy, as I understand it, has been a very influential part of the British history and is a source of national pride. While I don't agree with the mass amount of wealth they possess without doing so much as being born into it, I do agree with the source of pride they bring their country and so, even with the scandals that plauge them, I'd keep things the way they are.[/quote][/color][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090][color=slategray]That's an interestign point there, SirKyle, In all fairness, the Monarchy has been there throuought the best and worst parts of the British history, guiding the people along the way, giving national pride, but is it now all obsolete? Could they be the role models that britian has looked up to for centuries, g[/color][/color][/size][/font][font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]iven the Royals are now embrioled in an embarrasing political scandal? The way I see things is, while this old regiment may stir pride, it's had it's day in the sun, and I just don't think it's fair for the briton taxpayer to foot the bill for their extravagant lifestyles, especially if they [b]don't[/b] hold much political power.
After all, their [i]"chartiable acts"[/i] aren't coming form their own pocket.

Now, Even if the Monarchy can shrug this off and contunue on with the respect of it's nation, I feel that they should relenquish colonies to their people for their own sovereignty, the idea of the Commonwealth may seem like a good one, but i for one am tired of livign in another country's [i]shadow[/i], and that's what it feels like to me.

That's all I really have to say about the British empire now, given that your explanation of the Prime Minister situation and the electroal process was more than apt to unground my previously held views on the matter.

[/color][/size][/font]

[Sir Kyle]

[SIZE=1][QUOTE=Shinji]That's an interestign point there, SirKyle, In all fairness, the Monarchy has been there throuought the best and worst parts of the British history, guiding the people along the way, giving national pride, but is it now all obsolete? Could they be the role models that britian has looked up to for centuries, given the Royals are now embrioled in an embarrasing political scandal? The way I see things is, while this old regiment may stir pride, it's had it's day in the sun, and I just don't think it's fair for the briton taxpayer to foot the bill for their extravagant lifestyles, especially if they [b]don't[/b] hold much political power.
After all, their [i]"chartiable acts"[/i] aren't coming form their own pocket. [/QUOTE]

Indeed, this is always the thought in the back of my head. Over the centuries, the Royal Family has actually been the sole ruler of the country and has executed all the orders and such, much like a dictatorship nowadays. Now that Britain is with the times and have institued a Parliament, there seems to be no need for the Royal Family any longer. They don't hold sway anymore, pretty much all they do is live in Buckingham Palace and have nice little life all set in front of them. Personally, I really don't enjoy it when people are born into money (though it's inevitable, it happens a lot everywhere) but when you don't even have to run a business to get your riches, you are indeed lazy. Exactly what the Royal Family is. Maybe I'm just used to the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" ideal that has been set in America for the longest time that when the Royal family swims in their non-hard earned money while others struggle in poverty, it doesn't bother me as much. If they weren't such a source of pride (not as much anymore, but they still are. Just look at Elizabeth; tons of prestige there) I myself wouldn't mind having them ousted. Of course, what would you do if your nation all of sudden one day decided you didn't deserve the money you had, took it all away from you and made you more of a regular citizen? It probably wouldn't be fun, to say the least, and probably wouldn't be very democratic at all.

Overall, though they have been through scandal (what higher up HASN'T?), I'd keep them where they are just because they're in too deep to get out of it. Life will go on.

[quote name='Shinji]Now, Even if the Monarchy can shrug this off and contunue on with the respect of it's nation, I feel that they should relenquish colonies to their people for their own sovereignty, the idea of the Commonwealth may seem like a good one, but i for one am tired of livign in another country's [i]shadow[/i'], and that's what it feels like to me.[/quote]

I agree, perhaps they should let go of their commonwealth countries and let them establish their own seperate nations. I don't really know what to think on the situation though, I mean, where I live (the US), our country has the same sort of system where we have territories and such on islands and other places that are just under our control. It's not a subject that I'm well versed in, but I always though places like Australia and New Zealand got along just fine under British eyes, though I could be INCREDIBLY wrong. I don't live there or anything.[/SIZE]

[Retribution]

Well, me, I think that Democracy works, but in some instances doesnt. In some instances, however, it can get a little confusing. I cant imagine at all what America would be like if I could have my freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other things like that.

GO KERRY!!! *Prays to Kerry to liberate America from Bush's clutches of damage and death.*

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Altron']I cant imagine at all what America would be like if I could have my freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other things like that.[/quote]

[color=green]o_O

If you [I]could[/I]?

We?ve already got those rights?[/color]

[quote name='Altron']GO KERRY!!! *Prays to Kerry to liberate America from Bush's clutches of damage and death.*[/quote]

[color=green]Don?t get me started.

I, being a conservative, feel that John Kerry is not a good choice for president of the United States (or any public office, for that matter). He?s changed his positions on issues multiple times and is one of the most radically left-wing Democrats out there.

Here?s some primary source material that I think every potential Kerry supporter should take a good, hard look at?[/color]



[b]In His Senate Career, Kerry Has Voted Against A Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times.[/b] Other fiscally irresponsible votes include at least three key votes against lowering overall spending. [size=1](S.J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #24: Rejected 66-34: R 55-0; D 11-34, March 4, 1997; H.J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #158: Rejected 64-35: R 52-1; D 12-34, June 6, 1996; H.J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #98: Rejected 65-35: R 51-2; D 14-33, March 2, 1995; S.J. Res. 41, Roll Call Vote #48: Rejected 63-37: R 41-3; D 22-34, March 1, 1994; S.J. Res. 225, Roll Call Vote #45: Rejected 66-34: R 43-10; D 23-24, March 25, 1986)[/size]

[b]Kerry Has A Lifetime Rating Of 26% From Citizens Against Government Waste And Is A Long-Time Supporter Of Federal Funding For Boston?s ?Big Dig.?[/b] Former Senate Government Affairs Chairman John McCain called the project ?the biggest, most costly public works project in U.S. history.? The ?Big Dig? was estimated to cost $2.6 billion when it was approved in 1985. The cost to date has totaled more than $13.6 billion. (?Congressional Ratings,? Citizens Against Government Waste Website, [url]www.cagw.org[/url], Accessed January 7, 2003; Natalie M. Henry, ?Senate Commerce Investigates Overspending On Boston's ?Big Dig?,? Environment and Energy Daily, May 3, 2000)

[b]In April 2002, Kerry Said He Wanted A Larger Tax Cut And Was ?Not In Favor Of? A Repeal.[/b] CNN?s Tucker Carlson: ?Senator Kerry, . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush?s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?? Kerry: ?It?s not a question of courage. . . . And it?s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year . . . . [T]he next tax cut doesn?t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it?s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I?m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.? (CNN?s ?Crossfire,? April 16, 2002)

[b]Kerry Voted At Least Five Times To Raid The Social Security Trust Fund.[/b] [size=1] (H.R. 2014, Roll Call Vote #211: Conference Report Agreed To 92-8: R 55-0; D 37-8, July 31, 1997; H.R. 2264, Roll Call Vote #247: Conference Report Agreed To 50-50, With Vice President Gore Voting Yea: R 0-44; D 50-6, August 6, 1993; H.Con.Res. 268, Roll Call Vote #167: Conference Report Agreed To 58-29: R 21-20; D 37-9, June 6, 1988; H.R. 3545, Roll Call Vote #419: Conference Report Agreed To 61-28: R 18-23; D 43-5, December 21, 1987; H.R. 3128, Roll Call Vote #379: Conference Report Agreed To 78-1: R 40-1; D 38-0, December 19, 1985)[/size]

[center][size=3][b]Kerry's Key Votes[/b][/size][/center]

[center][b]107th Congress, 2001 Senate Votes[/b][/center]

[b]Against The Bush Tax Cut:[/b] Kerry voted against a $1.35 trillion tax cut package to reduce income-tax rates, alleviate the ?marriage penalty? and gradually repeal the estate tax. [size=1](H.R. 1836, Roll Call Vote #165: Adopted 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, May 23, 2001)[/size]

[center][b]106th Congress, 1999-2000 Senate Votes[/b][/center]

[b]Against Genetic Privacy:[/b] Kerry voted against approving a plan to restrict use of genetic information by health insurers.[size=1](Amendment To H.R. 4577, Roll Call Vote #165: Amendment Passed 58-40: R 55-0; D 3-40, June 29, 2000)[/size]

[center][b]105th Congress, 1997-98 Senate Votes[/b][/center]

[b]Against Educational Savings Accounts:[/b] Kerry voted against allowing a vote to create educational savings accounts. [size=1](H.R. 2646, Roll Call Vote #288: Cloture Motion Rejected 56-41: R 54-1; D 2-40, October 30, 1997)[/size]

[b]Against Balanced-Budget Amendment:[/b] Kerry voted against approving a balanced-budget constitutional amendment. [size=1] (S.J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #24: Rejected 66-34: R 55-0; D 11-34, March 4, 1997)[/size]

[center][b]104th Congress, 1995-96 Senate Votes[/b][/center]

[b]Against Balancing The Budget:[/b] Kerry voted against a bipartisan plan to balance the budget in seven years. [size=1] (S. Con. Res. 57, Roll Call Vote #150: Rejected 46-53: R 22-30; D 24-23, May 23, 1996) [/size]

[center][b]103rd Congress, 1993-94 Senate Votes[/b][/center]

[b]For The Largest Tax Increase In American History:[/b] Kerry voted to pass Clinton?s budget that raised taxes and cut spending. [size=1] (H.R. 2264, Roll Call Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Gore Voting ?Yea,? August 6, 1993) [/size]

[center][b]102nd Congress, 1991-92 Senate Votes[/b][/center]

[b]Against School Choice:[/b] Kerry voted against approving a school-choice pilot program. [size=1] (S. 2, Roll Call Vote #5: Rejected 36-57: R 33-6; D 3-51, January 23, 1992) [/size]

[b]Against Persian Gulf War:[/b] Kerry voted against authorizing the use of force in the Persian Gulf. [size=1] (S.J. Res. 2, Roll Call Vote #2: Passed 52-47: R 42-2; D 10-45, January 12, 1991)[/size]

[center][b]101st Congress, 1989-90 Senate Votes [/b][/center]

[b]Against Parental Notification For Minors? Abortions:[/b] Kerry voted to kill an amendment requiring parental notice for minors? abortions. [size=1] (H.R. 5257, Roll Call Vote #266: Motion To Table Rejected 48-48: R 8-34; D 40-14, October 12, 1990) [/size]

[James]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]Uh, guys...let's not turn this into a thread about the American election this year. Please note, Boba, that much of your evidence there doesn't tell the whole story. You can say that Kerry "voted against a bipartisan plan to balance the budget", but you also have to tell us what the specifics of that plan were -- Kerry may simply have voted against it because he didn't feel that it [i]would [/i]balance the budget, not because he didn't [i]want [/i]to balance the budget itself.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]I'm not saying that these things are right or wrong necessarily, but they don't tell the whole story. [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]In any case, let's keep this thread on topic please.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='shinji][b][size=1][color=#708090']A: Can a Monarchy Truly be Democratic?[/quote][/color][/size][/b]

[size=2][color=dimgray]Yes. You live in New Zealand and I live in Australia -- our two nations share one major similarity; they are both members of The Commonwealth of Nations.[/color]

[size=2][color=dimgray]As you may or may not know, Australia has been internally debating the idea of the Monarchy for years now. In 1998, a Constitutional Convention was held in the Houses of Parliament, where the whole Monarchy versus Republic situation was discussed and debated.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]In the end, a referendum was held, to ask the citizens what system they wanted to use.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]Most people voted to keep the Monarchy.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]But you have to look at little deeper than that. [i]Why [/i]was the Monarchy kept? Because the Republic model on offer wasn't what people wanted -- nobody wanted to have a President elected by two thirds of Parliament. They instead wanted a President who would be directly elected, should Australia become a Republic.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]There are a few points for me to make about this though.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]Firstly, the Queen (and her local representative, the Governor General), has very little power in this country. The same is true in New Zealand. For the most part, the Queen/Governor General play a symoblic and ceremonial role. These two entities play absolutely no role in determining Government policy, or deciding which legislation is put to the Parliament.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]So that's the first point.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]The second point is that, in Australia's case, the Republican proposals on offer are designed to simply replace the Governor General (or the Queen) with a President, who would be an Australian. So, therefore, our system of Government would not really change a whole lot -- the President would still largely be a ceremonial figure, whilst the Prime Minister would be the leader of the Government.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]So of course, a lot of people have debated whether this change is worthwhile or not, if it's not fundamentally changing anything.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]In my personal view...I think that we can become a Republic without immediately killing off all of our historical links to Britain. Replacing the Queen with a President is not necessarily saying that we hate the Monarchy or that we disregard the Queen's role in our national history. We are simply saying that we want to move beyond that system and "grow up". I don't think we'd even have to remove the Union Jack from our flag necesarily (although I would be in favor of replacing the Union Jack with the Aboriginal Flag).[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]In the case of Britain, Australia and New Zealand...although all three countries have differences in terms of the political process, one can still say that they are "democracies", or that they are at least "democratic republics". All three nations have regular elections, all three nations have freedom of speech and all three nations have a pluralist system, with a balance of power between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of Government.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]Australia's political system is inherited from the British Westminster system, but it also has elements of the American system mixed in. Perhaps this is the benefit of being such a young country -- we were able to pick and choose, to come up with what we might view as the "best" system at the time.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]So, that means that we don't have a "House of Lords" like Britain. Our Houses of Parliament include both a House of Representatives, and a Senate, like the US system.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]If you want to compare Australia to the United States, I'd say that we are just as "democratic", if not more so. Bear in mind that our election system is superior, in the sense that it's more representative and well-balanced (ie: no Electoral College and compulsory voting). But still, in the end, the overall similarity is still there.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=slategray][quote=shinji][b][size=1]B: Does Democracy work anyway?[/size][/color][/b][/size][/size]

[size=2][font=Verdana][size=1][color=slategray]It seems to me to be a very volatile form of Government, One that assumes that half the people are right most of the time[/quote][/color][/size][/font][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]Democracy does work, but it doesn't work perfectly. Of course, it depends what you mean by "work". It works, in the sense that the people are able to participate and they are able to remove ineffective Governments. But beyond that, it becomes very subjective.[/color]

[size=2][color=dimgray]Your second comment is from Cloricus's signature, I believe. But the commont itself is something I take issue with, for one major reason.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]Democracy does [i]not [/i]assume that 50% of people are either right or wrong. That completely misses the point. Democracy simply gives people an opportunity to participate in political discourse and to have an affect on the outcome of political decision making.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]More importantly still, democracy isn't always as simple as there being a particular percentage who vote for something.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]In Australia, we use a "preferential voting system". So, you don't simply vote for one candidate -- instead, you vote for several, in order of your own preference. In this way, our system hopes to more accurately capture the views of the public, in terms of voting. It seems to be a more effective system (and it eliminates the need for any outside body to come in and analyze voting patterns and so on).[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]So, yes, I think democracy and pluralism do work (note that these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, even though this is probably the case, historically speaking). The question is [i]how well [/i]they work and whether or not these systems can be improved.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]And just a note on the soveriegnty issue that you guys brought up...both Australia and New Zealand are soveriegn nations. There should be no illusion that we are somehow parts of the British Empire, because this is not the case.[/color][/size]

[size=2][color=dimgray]Australia became a soveriegn nation in 1901, when the various colonies (now States and Territories) signed a treaty with Britain. So, we have essentially been a sovereign nation since that time. I say "essentially", because we [i]do [/i]still have the Queen as our defacto head of state. But again, this is now little more than a ceremonial position. And I do feel that it should be changed -- but I'm under no illusion that this change would greatly affect Australia's political system or sovereign status.[/color][/size][/size]

[Guest cloricus]

*Click Click* What?s that Skip!? Some ones trapped down the old well! ...Erm I mean using a quote from my signature!

James your view on this is rather interesting, I've never looked at it from that light before, though I still must agree with the quote (which was not one of mine, a rather famous American man said it though I can't remember who he was, I will look for the name) purely on the mechanics of how democracy runs in the real world.

It requires a majority of a group of elected people to make an opinion and act on it as they see accordingly while crossing their fingers and hoping that it works.

[James]

[color=#707875]Well, of course, those who are elected are not always going to make the right decision on a functional level -- sometimes they'll only make problems worse. But democracy doesn't assume that anyone is right or wrong -- it just lets people choose their own destiny. That's all. I don't know why anyone would assume that just because the majority of people voted for someone, that their candidate was always able to solve problems. If that was the case, then we'd have had nearly no issues with elected officials since the birth of democracy/republicanism. *shrug*[/color]

[Ben]

Cloricus, the individual you say that you quoted seems to be a cynic. Possibly Mark Twain, it sounds like something he might say.

One thing that I think may have been pointed out already, most democratic systems we see today are not really [I]true[/I] democracies. The only example of a true democracy that I can think of was the original one that framed the very core of the concept. Athens, Greece.

The Athenians [I]all[/I] voted for whatever issue was to be voted on, from what I understand. The resulting decision would have been made in accordance with the majority. The majority of the population would be content.

In what we see as democracy, only a little over half of the population puts in their say of what should be done. (This statistic was pulled from the dregs of my memory, if someone [B]knows[/B] the actual numbers, feel free to correct me) People would much rather complain about decisions they didn't like than to vote on them and prevent unfavorable instances from occurring. But since they don't voice their opinion, or act upon it by voting, decisions unfavorable to the majority may occur.