Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in General Discussion read more

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

Jenny Mikakos the Victorian Health Minister has just fallen on her sword. Quit the ministry and quit her senate position. May well be more to come.

I’m not sure what the process is for replacing state senators, whether it’s from the same party or just the next person with the most votes (if they’re still available).

Good to see, as someone needed to take the fall for the good of the electorate, so now for some accountability at federal level. The replacement would be from the party and normally the next person below the incumbents on the ballot paper.

I suspect there will be more to come when the enquiry hands down its report.

Federal accountability relates more to the regulation of private aged care than to the escape of Covid from quarantine and probably won’t get a mention from this enquiry. Although most of the deaths have occurred in privately run aged care homes.

posted in General Discussion read more

Jenny Mikakos the Victorian Health Minister has just fallen on her sword. Quit the ministry and quit her senate position. May well be more to come.

I’m not sure what the process is for replacing state senators, whether it’s from the same party or just the next person with the most votes (if they’re still available).

posted in General Discussion read more

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

Not to mention of course the ridiculousness of two senate seats for each state regardless of population, especially when there is up to a seventy fold odd discrepancy in their populations, seven with a multiplier above 4000%. Those are huge imbalances, far from democratic and further millions of constituents in many other states also have a disproportionately large say in the national direction.

That imbalance is intentional and again a feature not a bug. As I discussed previously, the whole constitution and US democracy is a constant set of checks and balances. One of these intentional checks and balances is that the Congress is proportional representation and the Senate represents the States equally. This is to protect the small states and ensure the US isnt run by California & NY (although the Dems would love that).

Along the same lines SCOTUS serves a different role in the US than the High Court here. The primary role of SCOTUS is protection of the Constitution and ensuring Congress made law is Constitutional. The three law making arms are Congress, SCOTUS and the Executive (President) and the design is that if one enacts something unconstitutional the other 2 can step in.

We have the same situations here. Each state elects 12 senators (2 each for the Territories). So Tasmanians get to elect the same number of senators as do NSW or Victoria, despite its significantly lower population.

It made sense at the time of federation when the senate was truly a “state’s house” and the representatives were elected to represent the interests of their state. Political parties at the time were mainly just loose affiliations.

It makes no sense now with two parties dominating the political landscape. The senators from those parties no longer represent solely the interests of their state. They toe the party line in the main.

Not quite chalk and cheese, but there is a big difference here in the number of representatives per zone, which makes for a dstribution that overall much better reflects the voting pattern of constituents, even with basically a two party system, as an occasional Green, Lambie or Hanson clearly shows. Then of course, the disparity in the US is five times worse than our poorest example, with many others also showing a multiplier much worse than ours.

Do you remember the Bjelke Petersen days in Qld, when the Country Party ran the most outrageous gerrymander? What was it? One sheep one vote?

posted in Season 2020 read more

I don’t think Madge is interested in feeding the media. That’s why he just trots the same stuff out every week. “I have great belief in this group etc etc”. I get the feeling that he just wants to get it out of the way and if he didn’t have to do a press conference then he probably wouldn’t.

I don’t give it any credence and I don’t think it reflects what he would actually be saying to the players.

posted in General Discussion read more

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@formerguest said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

Not to mention of course the ridiculousness of two senate seats for each state regardless of population, especially when there is up to a seventy fold odd discrepancy in their populations, seven with a multiplier above 4000%. Those are huge imbalances, far from democratic and further millions of constituents in many other states also have a disproportionately large say in the national direction.

That imbalance is intentional and again a feature not a bug. As I discussed previously, the whole constitution and US democracy is a constant set of checks and balances. One of these intentional checks and balances is that the Congress is proportional representation and the Senate represents the States equally. This is to protect the small states and ensure the US isnt run by California & NY (although the Dems would love that).

Along the same lines SCOTUS serves a different role in the US than the High Court here. The primary role of SCOTUS is protection of the Constitution and ensuring Congress made law is Constitutional. The three law making arms are Congress, SCOTUS and the Executive (President) and the design is that if one enacts something unconstitutional the other 2 can step in.

We have the same situations here. Each state elects 12 senators (2 each for the Territories). So Tasmanians get to elect the same number of senators as do NSW or Victoria, despite its significantly lower population.

It made sense at the time of federation when the senate was truly a “state’s house” and the representatives were elected to represent the interests of their state. Political parties at the time were mainly just loose affiliations.

It makes no sense now with two parties dominating the political landscape. The senators from those parties no longer represent solely the interests of their state. They toe the party line in the main.

posted in General Discussion read more

The statements of fact that I refer to are in relation to the voting for the filling of SCOTUS vacancies. His other comments about the Dems expanding the number of states and the the size of the high court are opinions only. Some Dems have said this but I’m not sure that it has much support.

posted in General Discussion read more

@sheer64 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

Thanks for posting this.

His comments make a lot of sense and put the issue in a different perspective. And his statements are statements of fact, so readily checkable by those with the means to do so. (Not me).

I’d like to hear a response from someone in the DNC before I finally make up my mind about these tactics. But putting aside my prejudices against right wing politicians generally, I have to say that this explanation of what has happened, and is happening, seems to be fairly straight forward.

posted in General Discussion read more

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Jedi_Tiger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

Don Lemon and his comments says it all really…
Ssshh Don “Don’t tell everyone the Democrats plan!!!” getting rid of the electoral college.

They have been pretty open with it. Getting rid of electoral college, stacking SCOTUS to 11 or thirteen seats and adding DC and Puerto Rico as states. They are not hiding the ball. Hard to enter hostage negotiations if you have shot the hostage.

They’re having themselves on.

I think those views are coming from just a small group within DNC. Lacks support from the mainstream and simply isn’t going to happen

posted in General Discussion read more

So, @Tiger5150, you’ve really got me thinking about this now in a completely different way.

If McConnell was, in 2016, simply exercising the rights of the party in control of the senate, why did he dress it up as some sort of highly principled decision about the right of the people to determine the issue at an election. Why not just call it as it is. Nah, we’re in control. we’re not gonna let you do it.

Rusted on Republicans wouldn’t care. Rusted on Democrats wouldn’t expect any better. Was he playing to the middle ground? Is there a cohort of centralist swing voters who expect their representatives to not play obstructionist politics? Was he dressing up the decision to make it palatable to them? I can’t think of any other reason (always assuming that he’s not just a compulsive liar).

And that begs the question, why isn’t he worried about that cohort now? Have the Republicans privately given up hope of winning this election? Maybe they see as this as the last opportunity to salvage something before the ship goes down.

…and yes, I am being provocative. (Blame it on the couple of red wines I had with dinner).

posted in General Discussion read more

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@tigger said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

@Tiger5150 said in Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here:

What is the actual issue other than the dems are pissed because McConnell played political games in 2016?

That is the ethical issue. Nothing more than that. The ethical issue is simply that Republicans have previously adopted an entirely different position because it was politically convenient to do so.

I don’t think the Dems have the same ethical issue. I’m suggesting that it wasn’t unreasonable to expect a position to be filled 8 months out from the end of a presidents term. The Republicans said it was.

So it’s reasonable now for the Dems to say, “well if you thought it shouldn’t have been filled last time, the situation is even more extreme now”.

I actually don’t think the Dems have an ethical dilemma arising from their prior position but I think the Republicans do.

Not that it matters. We all know it’s just hard ball politics and legally they are entitled to do precisely what they are doing. If the situations were reversed I expect that the Democrats would do exactly the same.

The bar for ethical behaviour in the world of politics is set pretty low.

I agree with all of this but would make the point that “political convenience” sells it short. It is not solely political convenience. The reason that the republicans were able to “hold” that position and the democrats were not is they were elected by the us public to a majority in the senate and elected to enact their policies. Dems were not and therefore can not.

Of course if/when the parties are reversed the opposite will be held.

Can’t stress enough the DNC and RBG had their chance. I suspect that is why this stings so much. As soon as Trump was elected, it was a race against time for this SCOTUS seat.

It might be that we are using the term “political convenience” in slightly different contexts.

I think that it was politically convenient in 2016 for McConnell to say that the next SCOTUS appointment should be selected by the next president to be elected later that year. The reality was that the Republicans held power in the Senate and were damn well going to use it.

And that’s fine. But he did rely on set of circumstances that were politically convenient to explain away their actions. I suspect that Obama could have tried to make an appointment at any time during his presidency and the Republicans, if they had the numbers at the time, would have opposed it.

But, because it was late in the term, they were able to use the “election year” reason. So it was politically convenient.

As the saying goes “No point having power if you’re not prepared to use it”