Quote:
| Originally Posted by Skell This brings me to one more question that i have wondered. With the maximum two term Presidency policy you guys have does it bother any of you that it doesn't allow you to kick someone out. You don't get the chance to say "hey, you've had your time, you've done an ordinary job of late and where gonna show you". You don't get a chance at the next election to prove at the ballot box that you don't agree with his policies and want him and his party out.
What i'm getting at is i suppose that recently John Howard stood for what i think would be his fifth term as leader had he won. However his popularity was wavering and he most of his policies were very much against what the public of Australia wanted. Most Australians are against the Iraq war, most Australians are against the massive changes he made to our Industrial Relations laws. He did this after his last election win without a clear mandate (he lost many seats at the previous election on these issues). So Australians went to the ballot box this time and showed him and his party just how much they were against these issues. They lost in one of the biggest land slides in history. John Howard became only the second sitting PM in history to lose his own seat. The response was overwhelming that the public were against him and his parties policies.
Subsequently that party has admitted that they got many things wrong and they will listen to the people. They are now in agreeance with the new government polices to wind back IR laws and remove troops form Iraq.
Do you get that opportunity? |
We do not have a "no confidence" system here. The only time a President leaves office before the end of his term is if he becomes incapacitated or dies in office (as has happened a few times, resigns (as Nixon did) or is impeached and found guilty of a crime (this has never actually happened, though Clinton came close... he was impeached but not found guilty). Otherwise, a President serves his full term.
If at the end of two terms, people don't like the policies of a president, they don't vote HIM out of office... but they do get to vote for new candidates who have different policies. Your system makes the vote a referendum on the individual, whereas ours makes it a referendum on the policies. Which I know is the opposite of what I said yesterday, but it is still true. Your no-confidence system makes a no-confidence vote a matter of the popularity of the individual PM, whereas ours makes it an issue of the policies. On the other hand, because we vote for the individual rather than the party, we have a more direct say in the choosing of the President.
Even if a President were to be impeached, his VP would take over, and likely impose similar policies. If you want to get rid of the policies, you have to vote those policies out of power. If you don't like the individual, you can vote against the individual. In your system, the indivudual who is least popular can still become PM, if his PARTY is popular. Similarly, the party that is currently in power can be taken out of power if the people don't like an individual PM.... even if they happen to still like the party and its policies.
Why should an entier party that has popular policies lose its power because a particular individual is disliked. And why should a disliked individual automatically take office, just because a particular party is popular.
Take Israel for example: Ehud Olmert's predecessor was Aiel Sharon, who was widely popular and well-liked untill he suffered the stroke that put him out of office. Sharon brought his party to power and popularity. Ehud Olmert is incredibly unpopular in the wake of the wa in Lebanon a year and a half ago, and there have been some calls for a no-confidence vote for close to a year now. But there are people within his party who know that they cannot win such a vote, and the people LIKE the party that is currently in power, even if they don't like Olmert. As a result, there is reluctance to go through a NC vote, which the party may not win. So Olmert, who is disliked, stays in power because of the fact that people like the PARTY. And in order to get id of Olmert, the entire party would need to be taken down.
So the result is that a widely unpopular PM remains in power, not because of his policies, but because of which party he represents. If Olmert were to stand for election on his own, as our President does, he would lose in a landslide. But they can't get rid of Olmert without getting rid of the party, even if the party is popular.
I prefer a system of direct elections, where the individual office-holder stands for elections. The advantage is that unpopular people don't hold office just because of what party they belong to, and parties don't lose power because of individuals.
Our system isn't perfect, but I think it has certain advantages over other systems. On the other hand I agree that it also has disadvantages... there have been a few President's that I would have liked to vote out in middle of their terms with a NC vote.
It's a give and take... you give up certain advantages in favor of others. Our system works for us, and that's all that really matters.
Elliot
Linear Mode
