The impeachment inquiry

[brian ross]

That is just the system they operate under Brian like it or lump it.

I will lump it, thank'ee very much, Red. There is nothing I can do about it but of course, that doesn't matter to most Septics as they refuse to look at alternatives.

I prefer the Parliamentary system where the leader of the country is chosen from the members of the party which wins the most seats in the house of Reps. To me is seems less of a dictator role where the party in charge of the HOR can boot out a leader at any time if need be.

The Westminster system is about flexibility and we inherited from there in our Washminster system. It has only been exercised three or four times in our history.

I think compulsory voting as in Australia is a good idea which forces people to get off their arses and participate in the elections, I gather in some countries like the UK that dont have this people are elected with really small number of votes due to voter apathy, that is not even bothering to vote.

Despite what the Government may maintain, we don't have actual compulsory voting in Australia. We have compulsory registration for voting and compulsory attendance at the polling station on polling day. All you are required to do is have your name marked off on the electoral roll. You can refuse the ballot paper. You can deface the ballot paper if you so wish. You cannot however, leave the ballot station with a ballot paper. You must hand the ballot paper to the electoral official who will then stuff it into the ballot box. What that does is make people take notice there is an election and in all likelihood, simply vote.

I also think the Australian system of preferential voting is a good idea giving people who may like a fringe party (greens?) a second/third choice on who should win the seat. The winner is determined by the candidate who reaches over fifty percent after preference choices are taken into account if required. A lot of people dont like this method but I think its fairer especially where a lot of candidates are involved and again gets rid of someone being elected with a small percentage of the overall votes and also requires voters to think beyond their unelectable protest vote.

Preferential voting is a fairer system than the simplistic first-past-the-post voting system used in the UK or the USA. It ensures who ever wins the seat is the most representational of the candidates. It does though, sometimes produce odd results.

Anyway that's my view on the world!

A not bad one, Red. Not bad at all.

[Black Orchid]

I suggest listening to the Americans explain their system and not Brian's bias.

[brian ross]

I suggest listening to the Americans explain their system and not Brian's bias.

Yeah. Do that. Get just as confused as the Septics are.

There are alternatives. Explore them. Understand where and why they are often fairer than the confused American system is.

[Texan]

The Constitution and the Electoral College were negotiated by the original 13 states. The electoral college and the bicameral congress were put in place as assurances that the larger states could not ignore the will of the smaller states. If you want to get rid of the electoral college, it will require a Constitutional Amendment. The process is there. Of course, as a foreigner, you have no say in the matter. Just stay over there and whine for our entertainment.

Trump ran his campaign geared toward an electoral college win. Those are the rules of the election. If Hillary pursued the popular vote, she ran a stupid campaign. I guess that makes Trump smarter. He understood the rules and took advantage of them. He didn't cheat or break any rules.

That you are apparently unwilling or incapable of seeing fairer alternatives than your screwy system, Tex suggests that you are just as much a victim of it as nearly all your fellow citizens are.

As has been suggested by Red, there are alternative, fairer systems to the US system. Perhaps you need to educate yourself in them before you comment further?

All I am seeking is a fairer, more representational system for your country. The Westminster or the Washminster system as we use downunder could be one such alternative. Before commenting further, please learn about such alternatives.

It's not about what is "fairer". It is what it is. It was negotiated and procedures were put in place to amend the Constitution. If a "majority" want to ignore the Constitution, then the whole thing is null and void and we aren't a country any longer.

[Black Orchid]

I suggest listening to the Americans explain their system and not Brian's bias.

Yeah. Do that. Get just as confused as the Septics are.

There are alternatives. Explore them. Understand where and why they are often fairer than the confused American system is.

They aren't the confused ones and your comment is totally ignorant. YOU ARE the harping confused one!! There are also alternatives to being a pompous twat and perhaps you should explore them.

Neither the UK nor Australia are divided up into 50 different states either.

[brian ross]

The Constitution and the Electoral College were negotiated by the original 13 states. The electoral college and the bicameral congress were put in place as assurances that the larger states could not ignore the will of the smaller states. If you want to get rid of the electoral college, it will require a Constitutional Amendment. The process is there. Of course, as a foreigner, you have no say in the matter. Just stay over there and whine for our entertainment.

Trump ran his campaign geared toward an electoral college win. Those are the rules of the election. If Hillary pursued the popular vote, she ran a stupid campaign. I guess that makes Trump smarter. He understood the rules and took advantage of them. He didn't cheat or break any rules.

That you are apparently unwilling or incapable of seeing fairer alternatives than your screwy system, Tex suggests that you are just as much a victim of it as nearly all your fellow citizens are.

As has been suggested by Red, there are alternative, fairer systems to the US system. Perhaps you need to educate yourself in them before you comment further?

All I am seeking is a fairer, more representational system for your country. The Westminster or the Washminster system as we use downunder could be one such alternative. Before commenting further, please learn about such alternatives.

It's not about what is "fairer". It is what it is. It was negotiated and procedures were put in place to amend the Constitution. If a "majority" want to ignore the Constitution, then the whole thing is null and void and we aren't a country any longer.

They don't need to ignore anything. By your own admission, an amendment is required. Of course, all the political players would preach against such an admendment. They need to be ignored, not the Constitution.

[Black Orchid]

YOU are the one who needs to be ignored, Brian!

[brian ross]

I suggest listening to the Americans explain their system and not Brian's bias.

Yeah. Do that. Get just as confused as the Septics are.

There are alternatives. Explore them. Understand where and why they are often fairer than the confused American system is.

They aren't the confused ones and your comment is totally ignorant. YOU ARE the harping confused one!! There are also alternatives to being a pompous twat and perhaps you should explore them.

I am not confused in the slightest, Black Orchid. You, OTOH, however, appear to think that mere acceptance denotes non-confusion for some obscure reason.

Neither the UK nor Australia are divided up into 50 different states either.

No they aren't, thankfully, Black Orchid. No they aren't. Tsk, tsk.

[brian ross]

YOU are the one who needs to be ignored, Brian!

Then ignore me, Black Orchid, ignore me.

[Texan]

The Constitution and the Electoral College were negotiated by the original 13 states. The electoral college and the bicameral congress were put in place as assurances that the larger states could not ignore the will of the smaller states. If you want to get rid of the electoral college, it will require a Constitutional Amendment. The process is there. Of course, as a foreigner, you have no say in the matter. Just stay over there and whine for our entertainment.

Trump ran his campaign geared toward an electoral college win. Those are the rules of the election. If Hillary pursued the popular vote, she ran a stupid campaign. I guess that makes Trump smarter. He understood the rules and took advantage of them. He didn't cheat or break any rules.

That you are apparently unwilling or incapable of seeing fairer alternatives than your screwy system, Tex suggests that you are just as much a victim of it as nearly all your fellow citizens are.

As has been suggested by Red, there are alternative, fairer systems to the US system. Perhaps you need to educate yourself in them before you comment further?

All I am seeking is a fairer, more representational system for your country. The Westminster or the Washminster system as we use downunder could be one such alternative. Before commenting further, please learn about such alternatives.

It's not about what is "fairer". It is what it is. It was negotiated and procedures were put in place to amend the Constitution. If a "majority" want to ignore the Constitution, then the whole thing is null and void and we aren't a country any longer.

They don't need to ignore anything. By your own admission, an amendment is required. Of course, all the political players would preach against such an admendment. They need to be ignored, not the Constitution.

An amendment requires ratification by 38 states or 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. Get to lobbying. I'm happy as is.