ummm... I can't see what your images say but looking at the comment below I assume it was a political compass. From what I recall I was (~-0.5,~-2) so I'm pretty socially libertarian but I feel economically more centrist so generally I am a swing voter in most Aus elections. The thing that frustrates me however, is not so much the politics itself (which can be infuriating) but the voting systems that have been put in place in both the UK and the US. Firstly, the thing that we want to achieve is a democratically elected parliament (supposedly, another debate to be had) but the systems that these two world giants employ are not at all democratic. Firstly, the UK, they and America use the first past the post voting system (people vote for one person and the person with the most votes wins). This system means that:
1. The person elected doesn't even need a majority of people to want him to win. For instance, in the 2015 UK election, the tories only attained 37% of the vote now that doesn't seem fair for them to essentially have 100% power in the house of reps. This also meant that parties who deserved significantly more seats in parliament than they got were discredited, like them or not, UKIP got (like them or not) 12.1% of the vote but only 0.2% of the power. This is in comparison to the superior alternative voting system (where people vote for numerous parties rather than just one in a sequence of who they want to win). This is employed in Australia and mean't that at least the coalition ended up with 50.36% of the vote in 2016 in the TPP against the labour party which seems like a much better representation of who the people wanted.
2. The more egregious sin committed by the FPTP system is that third parties actually benefit the party that people least want to win and will always inevitably be removed or left with a very small number of votes. This is known as the spoiler effect and is THE REASON FOR BREXIT. Don't believe me? Well, in the lead up to the election, the conservatives were down on poles due to the popularity of the UKIP party. Since Cameron realised that UKIP were taking a lot of the votes they would have otherwise gotten as many conservative voters moved to UKIP, he promised a Brexit in order to lure these people towards voting for the conservatives. This meant that the FPTP system forced Cameron's hand into this deal. As can be blatantly seen, if Cameron hadn't called Brexit, Farage and UKIP would not have campaigned for a Brexit because they jumped ship as soon as it occurred.
This meant that overall, not only was the FPTP system a cause to a poor democracy, it also has been the foundation to this populous movement in Britain and America. I think it is pretty obvious that the political uprising that occurred in Britain was at least a partial factor into Trump winning the election.
Now to America, they employ the FPTP system but they double down on their bad voting systems with the electoral college (this is objective). The electoral college inherently gives some people a more powerful vote than others, what kind of democracy is that? The way it works is that it gives smaller states a set number of electors before it then hands out the remaining electors to the other states. This means that smaller and generally more rural states have people with more voting power as the ratio between electors and voters is higher in these states. For this reason, someone could become president with literally 22% of the vote simply targeting the lowest population states. This inherently favours republican nominees as seen by the huge rip in the middle of the American voting map. Therefore, the electoral college leads to some people who don't really deserve a more powerful vote having one.
Overall, I think BEFORE you even start to talk about the politics, you must have a fair system or what is the point. It doesn't matter how much we want to challenge the policies of Putin say, since their system is complete BS it really doesn't matter.
Ok, to objections of this, firstly on the smaller states deserve a larger portion of the vote. Firstly, the constitution was drafted in the late 1700s before industrialisation and long before globalisation. The movement of people seen by these two movements have meant that the demographics that exist in these areas are very different to those the founding fathers were predicting. Secondly, the US congress has a senate which is based on an even representation of each state similar to what we have in Australia so even if the president was able to be selected purely on large states, their power could be unable to be utilised properly.
So yeah, that's my 2 cents.
Home
Help
Search
Login
