The fascist regime that made you a moron: Thanks dJonkey

[Scuba_Steve]

So you not only have a disregard for sentence structure, grammar and punctuation, you're making up your own words?
Good for you.

Definition of aye in English
aye
Pronunciation: /ʌɪ/
(also ay)

English translation of ay
ay
interj
a (expresando — dolor) ow!, ouch!; (— susto, sobresalto) oh!

What do ya know its not a made up word after all, but hey "you go right ahead with your uninformed whining" don't let me stop you.

[avgas]

In the last election the Government received 50.4% of the votes cast (with the opposition parties receiving 46.21%). 75,000* odd votes were cast for parties failing to meet the threshold or win a seat (and if these are discounted it increases the Govt vote to over 51%).
*The overwhelming majority of these votes (59,237) went to the Conservative party.
There was a one seat overhang due to the Maori & Act parties electoral seats.

Slice it anyway you like, this Govt represents a majority of the population who voted.
What part of the equation fails to meet the definition of a democracy?

"government of the people, by the people, for the people"

If Abe was the father of the modern democracy, and this was the speech of the birth of democracy. Couldn't we consider this the first principle of democracy?

Doesn't that mean that a majority of the people should say who is is power - rather than number of votes?
Using that same theory - if the people did not vote - where is the reset button that forces the govt to be formed by those who did?
i.e.
- if 70% of people vote, shouldn't government be 70% full?
- if there are 120 seats in the beehive, each seat is worth 0.8% of the people?

I could also bring up the MMP referendum where it was not the majority of 50% or more who voted to keep MMP - but infact the majority was the % who voted against it in one form or another. But because the alternatives were distributed, there was no open forum of developing better options and no clear victor was found, the largest percentage was to keep MMP.
This is the equivalent of drinking your own urine - because there are far too many other juices and drinks out there to get a consensus. Just plain dumb.

Politics will be the death of us and complacency will be its bitch.

[Oscar]

Definition of aye in English
aye
Pronunciation: /ʌɪ/
(also ay)

English translation of ay
ay
interj
a (expresando — dolor) ow!, ouch!; (— susto, sobresalto) oh!

What do ya know its not a made up word after all, but hey "you go right ahead with your uninformed whining" don't let me stop you.

Oh yeah, you're a real master of English all right. Let's have a look at the contribution in question:

thank for "democracy" ay

I can't imagine how I didn't figure out what you were on about immediately.
Your whining is not only uniformed, it's illiterate.

[Oscar]

"government of the people, by the people, for the people"

If Abe was the father of the modern democracy, and this was the speech of the birth of democracy. Couldn't we consider this the first principle of democracy?

Doesn't that mean that a majority of the people should say who is is power - rather than number of votes?
Using that same theory - if the people did not vote - where is the reset button that forces the govt to be formed by those who did?
i.e.
- if 70% of people vote, shouldn't government be 70% full?
- if there are 120 seats in the beehive, each seat is worth 0.8% of the people?

I could also bring up the MMP referendum where it was not the majority of 50% or more who voted to keep MMP - but infact the majority was the % who voted against it in one form or another. But because the alternatives were distributed, there was no open forum of developing better options and no clear victor was found, the largest percentage was to keep MMP.
This is the equivalent of drinking your own urine - because there are far too many other juices and drinks out there to get a consensus. Just plain dumb.

Politics will be the death of us and complacency will be its bitch.

I thought about that.
However, you can give people democracy, but can you make them participate in it?
There are certainly those who prefer not to participate in the election process, and is that not their right?

That path leads to compulsory voting.

[Berries]

That path leads to compulsory voting.

Having never given enough of a shit to vote I don't see what compulsion will achieve. I'd only vote for the person/party who didn't have a chance, just for a laugh. If they got in we'd be even more fucked than if any of the usual suspects did.


Possibly.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I thought about that.
However, you can give people democracy, but can you make them participate in it?
There are certainly those who prefer not to participate in the election process, and is that not their right?

That path leads to compulsory voting.

And thats an issue how?

Serious question.

In my opinion a compulsory exercise of a hard won franchise might lead to some improvement in the product. Yes, i can see the counter arguments ( dont bother reiterating them to me unless you have something other than the trite "its not democracy if you are forced to participate").

What our democracy lacks is informed, committed to the process, thougtful management. What we have is the best politicians money can buy. No, i dont think they are all Philip Field, I mean large corporates, influence groups, and particularly those associated with business sectors have the most money to spend, and weld the most influence. People are disillusioned, and the superficial attractivenes of the Russell Brand "It makes no difference so I will not participate" becomes their mantra.

If you had to participate, and things like civics ad ethics were taugt in schools, then maybe peoples qualit of participation as well as the fact of having to, migt improve?

[avgas]

However, you can give people democracy, but can you make them participate in it?
There are certainly those who prefer not to participate in the election process, and is that not their right?

That path leads to compulsory voting.

No it doesn't.
What it does force is someone to look and act on the numbers. Right now we are saying that the vote is all that counts. That logic is flawed. That is the logic that gets me in trouble with most women out there. It is not just what people say that counts. IT IS WHAT THEY DON'T SAY ALSO.

If I do 80% of a job, I am entitled to 80% pay.
So if the government gets 80% of the vote - why are we filling the house?

Why should 80% voter turn out = 100% government?

Let me put it another way - you can eat shit, or drink piss.
If you pick nothing, should I put both in a blender and shove it down your throat? Or does your abstaining actually mean you would prefer to not drink piss nor eat shit?
Which one makes more sense - allowing a govt to take power when people don't like one party over another - or allowing the same ratio of what people voted for to take the same ratio of power?

[Ocean1]

And thats an issue how?

I like the fact that people that can't be fukt voting don't unduly influence my life, they're invariably the ones least qualified to do so.

In my opinion a compulsory exercise of a hard won franchise might lead to some improvement in the product. Yes, i can see the counter arguments ( dont bother reiterating them to me unless you have something other than the trite "its not democracy if you are forced to participate").

So, you're saying: "Vote, because you must exercise your opinion no matter how well reasoned", and also: "Don't bother exercising your opinion where it contradicts mine unless it's well qualified."?

Nah, can't be fukt.

[Ocean1]

Maybe I can.

What we have is the best politicians money can buy. No, i dont think they are all Philip Field, I mean large corporates, influence groups, and particularly those associated with business sectors have the most money to spend, and weld the most influence.

What we have is the best government that VOTES can buy. Which is what any collection of people driven primarily by self interest deserve. If people voted on principle rather than what's in it for them, and if government was constrained by the resulting mandate then you'd have rather a lot more economic consequence with which to manage what is, after all an exercise in economic management.

[Banditbandit]

Extreme lefties tend to be immature mommies boys and girls but thankfully a lot them grow out of it as they experience the real world and life!

You think the Greens are extreme left ??? ;

Asset sales is misleading, sale of asset shares is more to the point.

Sale of asset shares gives more choice to more people, it allows me as a taxpayer to leave my tax money to be distributed in other state controlled activities.

It also allows me the choice of investing my own money into the assets listed and the state still controls the major shares anyway, so nothing has changed.

Sale of asset shares also allows the government access to other outside investors money to ease up pressure on tax money for redistribution to other state spending.

The only thing opposition parties have rallied out of these share sales is scaremongering and chicken little syndrome tactics to "waste" the gains from the sales!

The referendum is a case in point ... "a disgraceful irresponsible waste of taxpayer money" IMHO!

Bwhahahahaa .. when opinion polls show 68% of New Zealanders do not want the sales to go ahead???

I thought about that.
However, you can give people democracy, but can you make them participate in it?
There are certainly those who prefer not to participate in the election process, and is that not their right?

That path leads to compulsory voting.

Al la that bunch of godless convicts across the ditch ??? (also known as Austra'ya ... )

[BoristheBiter]

Bwhahahahaa .. when opinion polls show 68% of New Zealanders do not want the sales to go ahead???

the anti smacking one, the tougher sentences one.
When they are not a binding referendum then yes, they are a complete waste of money.

The nats have already said they are going to ignore it.
Pointless wasting the postage to send it back, it has already gone it the bin (recycling of course)

[Banditbandit]

the anti smacking one, the tougher sentences one.
When they are not a binding referendum then yes, they are a complete waste of money.

The nats have already said they are going to ignore it.
Pointless wasting the postage to send it back, it has already gone it the bin (recycling of course)

Yeah .. I agree that a non-binding referendum is a waste of time .. the Government could have declared it a binding one .. but the chickenshits refused to.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yeah .. I agree that a non-binding referendum is a waste of time .. the Government could have declared it a binding one .. but the chickenshits refused to.

If we had democracy they'd be binding, as well they should be.

We just need a coup d'état, that'd at-least be entertaining & cost a lot less too

[BoristheBiter]

Yeah .. I agree that a non-binding referendum is a waste of time .. the Government could have declared it a binding one .. but the chickenshits refused to.

Actually i have no time for this as they (the nats) said exactly what they were going to do.

If 68% of the population didn't want it then they should have voted some one else in.
not that there is much of a choice but it is a bit late crying about it now.

Guess you will just have to vote Labour/ greens and let them buy it back at a massive loss to the country.
You know, like kiwi rail. but not to worry the greens will just print more money because we know that works.

[Brian d marge]

Yes they are doing exactly what they said they would do
And its a fiscally responsible short term action
It doesnt make it right though
And there may be better ways
Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk