I had assumed that hyperpartisanship couldn't happen here in Australia. I assumed that our use of preferential voting and compulsory voting and our Westminster parliamentary system of government...
I had assumed that hyperpartisanship couldn't happen here in Australia. I assumed that our use of preferential voting and compulsory voting and our Westminster parliamentary system of government protected us from this. I thought it was just an outcome of the USA's electoral system: first-past-the-post voting, a winner-takes-all model for state electoral colleges, and an single central focus of government power outside of the popularly elected houses of Congress.
It seems I was wrong. This wrangling over climate change has brought down repeated Prime Ministers over the past decade (a case could probably be made that climate change policy has been the downfall of all PMs in the past decade, directly or indirectly), and it shows no sign of stopping: we're about to lose yet another Prime Minister over this issue because it's more important to fight the other party, even if that means failing. It's all about competition and holding on to power.
It’s really sad. It’s creating huge rifts among non-politicians as well, showing the true insidious lust for power that these “leaders” have. They know that to keep their power they need to keep...
It’s really sad. It’s creating huge rifts among non-politicians as well, showing the true insidious lust for power that these “leaders” have. They know that to keep their power they need to keep common people in the dark and squabbling amongst themselves. It’s easier to hate Nazis or sjws or whichever boogeyman instead of the politicians that are in the pockets of global corporations.
I think this was a really interesting article about some factors contributing to the polarization/hyper-partisanship (there are a few quotes at the top, the article starts below):...
I think this was a really interesting article about some factors contributing to the polarization/hyper-partisanship (there are a few quotes at the top, the article starts below): http://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/
This article does not go nearly far enough in blaming Gingrich and the Republicans for the American gridlock. From what I've seen, the Democrats consistently made concessions to the Republicans in...
This article does not go nearly far enough in blaming Gingrich and the Republicans for the American gridlock. From what I've seen, the Democrats consistently made concessions to the Republicans in order to get bills passed while now the Republicans absolutely refuse to do the same. Lines such as :
Whatever Barack Obama wanted, the Republicans in Congress were determined to stop. Whatever Mr Trump wants, the Democrats in Congress are determined to kill.
imply that the legislation proposed by Obama and that proposed by Trump are even remotely comparable in terms of bipartisan input and actual quality of the thing being proposed.
It's possible that my bias is blinding me, but compare for instance the Republican healthcare bill and the chicanery around it to Obamacare.
I don't know much about the Australian government, so no comment there.
As an Australian, I'm incredibly frustrated by the current state of our political system. I'm a left leaning greens/labor voter, but I like Malcolm Turnbull as a prime minister. What is REALLY...
As an Australian, I'm incredibly frustrated by the current state of our political system. I'm a left leaning greens/labor voter, but I like Malcolm Turnbull as a prime minister.
What is REALLY fucked up is that in my entire life as a voter, we have not had a full term prime minister. It's been over a decade now.
He had a "moderate" veneer which led everyone to believe that he'd be a centrist Prime Minister. But, as the years have gone by, we've seen that what looked like centrism was more like cynicism:...
I like Malcolm Turnbull as a prime minister.
He had a "moderate" veneer which led everyone to believe that he'd be a centrist Prime Minister. But, as the years have gone by, we've seen that what looked like centrism was more like cynicism: he would do whatever was required to get, and then hold on to, power.
I feel that News Corp’s news business model is based on creating this type of environment in the US and U.K. as well. Do you all agree with that? Is it the same in Australia? How are democracies...
I feel that News Corp’s news business model is based on creating this type of environment in the US and U.K. as well. Do you all agree with that? Is it the same in Australia?
How are democracies supposed to function when voters are being given extreme bias, falsehoods, and distortions as part of the news cycle?
News Corp doesn't so much foster hyper-partisanship as pick one side to barrack for. They support one side over the other, and contribute to the divisiveness that way.
News Corp doesn't so much foster hyper-partisanship as pick one side to barrack for. They support one side over the other, and contribute to the divisiveness that way.
They don't come out and say they're partisan, but it's obvious in everything they write and publish, and they make no attempt to say or imply they're "fair and balanced".
They don't come out and say they're partisan, but it's obvious in everything they write and publish, and they make no attempt to say or imply they're "fair and balanced".
I had assumed that hyperpartisanship couldn't happen here in Australia. I assumed that our use of preferential voting and compulsory voting and our Westminster parliamentary system of government protected us from this. I thought it was just an outcome of the USA's electoral system: first-past-the-post voting, a winner-takes-all model for state electoral colleges, and an single central focus of government power outside of the popularly elected houses of Congress.
It seems I was wrong. This wrangling over climate change has brought down repeated Prime Ministers over the past decade (a case could probably be made that climate change policy has been the downfall of all PMs in the past decade, directly or indirectly), and it shows no sign of stopping: we're about to lose yet another Prime Minister over this issue because it's more important to fight the other party, even if that means failing. It's all about competition and holding on to power.
It’s really sad. It’s creating huge rifts among non-politicians as well, showing the true insidious lust for power that these “leaders” have. They know that to keep their power they need to keep common people in the dark and squabbling amongst themselves. It’s easier to hate Nazis or sjws or whichever boogeyman instead of the politicians that are in the pockets of global corporations.
I think this was a really interesting article about some factors contributing to the polarization/hyper-partisanship (there are a few quotes at the top, the article starts below): http://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/
This article does not go nearly far enough in blaming Gingrich and the Republicans for the American gridlock. From what I've seen, the Democrats consistently made concessions to the Republicans in order to get bills passed while now the Republicans absolutely refuse to do the same. Lines such as :
imply that the legislation proposed by Obama and that proposed by Trump are even remotely comparable in terms of bipartisan input and actual quality of the thing being proposed.
It's possible that my bias is blinding me, but compare for instance the Republican healthcare bill and the chicanery around it to Obamacare.
I don't know much about the Australian government, so no comment there.
As an Australian, I'm incredibly frustrated by the current state of our political system. I'm a left leaning greens/labor voter, but I like Malcolm Turnbull as a prime minister.
What is REALLY fucked up is that in my entire life as a voter, we have not had a full term prime minister. It's been over a decade now.
He had a "moderate" veneer which led everyone to believe that he'd be a centrist Prime Minister. But, as the years have gone by, we've seen that what looked like centrism was more like cynicism: he would do whatever was required to get, and then hold on to, power.
I feel that News Corp’s news business model is based on creating this type of environment in the US and U.K. as well. Do you all agree with that? Is it the same in Australia?
How are democracies supposed to function when voters are being given extreme bias, falsehoods, and distortions as part of the news cycle?
News Corp doesn't so much foster hyper-partisanship as pick one side to barrack for. They support one side over the other, and contribute to the divisiveness that way.
Does News Corp present themselves as a supporter of just one side though? Or do/did they claim to be “fair and balanced” in the Australia as well?
They don't come out and say they're partisan, but it's obvious in everything they write and publish, and they make no attempt to say or imply they're "fair and balanced".