War & PoliticsGerman Election

 

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   
 To:  milko     
42034.10 In reply to 42034.7 
North Korea might be an example - it is hard for me to really tell what is going on because the news bias has always been pretty strong.

You are right about problems from the past aren't justified by bad behavior of the present - I was sort of referring to the middle east countries though and not necessarily the enemy du jour.

Historically the US method of dealing with extremist is to just let people do their protesting and complaining.  Usually by the time they grow up, get a job and have a couple of kids, they are too tired to misbehave.

I am not a big fan of the German approach which is more or less to label anyone who disagrees with the lead party as a fascist.  I am sure that there is some of that, but every political party will attract and incite some overly excitable followers -  the greens are a prefect example.  Heavy suppression of free speech is rarely a good idea, and it is done with an iron fist there. 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  milko  
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      
42034.11 In reply to 42034.10 
The Germans suppress free speech? I know they're pretty harsh on Nazis but there's some very good reasons why, and I don't think much else is verboten is it? I could be wrong, would love to know more. 
milko
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   
 To:  ALL
42034.12 
I guess the part that is the most interesting is that my German business colleagues  and friends have given me a lot of flack over the US electoral college system, where a candidate that had less than 50% of the individual votes could win.

Germany will apparently now have as the leader someone who 2 out of 3 German voters didn't want to be their leader. 

If 2 out of 3 voters in the US voted for "someone else", it would be very difficult to win - except of course in California that could theoretically happen.

 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   
 To:  ALL
42034.13 
quote: milko
The Germans suppress free speech? I know they're pretty harsh on Nazis but there's some very good reasons why, and I don't think much else is verboten is it? I could be wrong, would love to know more. 

Similar to here in CA, a lot of it is social pressure.  Even though the claim is that it is a society open to ideas and conversations, in reality if you have an alternative point of view, it is dealt with pretty harshly.

I know of a few people in Germany who are gun owners, and they asked me to never mention it at work or they would loose their jobs.  Pretty similar here in CA.  Of course smoking pot, a Federal crime is allowed, while smoking cigarettes or drinking a beer when you are 18 is a crime worthy of jail.

It all seems kind of crazy to someone who grew up around relatives that smoked and most of us drank modest amounts of beer since we were 6.

My grandmother had a keg on tap at all times and no one could leave the place without drinking a glass for risk of insulting her.

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS  
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      
42034.14 In reply to 42034.12 
You're comparing totally different electoral and political systems. In Germany (and the UK) people are voting for parties (or local representatives) and not individuals (presidents), meaning the leader of the largest party is generally the one who assumes the top position. Whereas in the States you have a Presidential election.

It is similar in the UK where 57.6% of the population didn't vote for the party in power. But also in the US 53.9% of the population didn't vote for the current president.

At least in Germany it is proportional and they are forced to enter coalition governments. And a proportional system allows a more diverse lineup of political parties, rather than a 2 party system, because there is a realistic chance of representation.
+1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)  
 To:  milko     
42034.15 In reply to 42034.9 
Yeah apparently AfD's support is confined to the (formerly "communist") east:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/28/is-germanys-election-result-the-revenge-of-the-east

 
“Badge, gun, holster, skateboard … meet Canada's first skateboarding cop”
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      
42034.16 In reply to 42034.6 
> As far as having a sense of nationalism, I don't see that as a bad thing.

Except for when it's the absolute worst thing ever, which it almost always is.


> ..perhaps Germany needs a bit more of it.

¬_¬ Yeah, because who cares about 82 million deaths?

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Manthorp  
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
42034.17 In reply to 42034.16 
I grew up in Pakistan, and for the last 2 years attended an international school with a US staff. I can still remember the daily pledging of allegiance to the the flag, which even as a child disturbed me.

It was no worse than singing the Pakistani national anthem in a previous school or standing for the national anthem in UK cinemas (yes, I'm old enough to remember that!) - but it was no better either.

That nationalism which shades into chauvinism, which shades into jingoism, which shades into xenophobia, strikes me as antithetical to that which makes people most human. We should value being social animals, not antisocial ones.

"We all have flaws, and mine is being wicked."
James Thurber, The Thirteen Clocks 1951
 
+1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Dave!!  
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      
42034.18 In reply to 42034.12 
Milko is correct that in Germany, you vote for the party - not the leader. In the UK, you're supposed to vote for who you want your local MP to be, but of course people often end up looking at May, Corbyn etc. and using that to make their decision.

However, the other way of looking at it is that more people voted for Merkel's party than anyone else, so she's the most deserving leader. After her, the next party was the SPD with only 20% of the vote share. Surely it'd be even more strange to have a leader that only 1 in 5 voted for?

As it is due to the coalition process, by the time the parties have come to an agreement, the ruling coalition will (between them) have over 50% of the vote, and hence have a mandate to be in power. It's just that politicians and parties have to work together to achieve it.

On the plus side of the German system, the only votes that are essentially wasted are for parties with less than 5% of the vote share. In Britain, only the winner of the constituency counts, which means lots of tactical voting and wasted votes. Vote for the Green party in the UK and it's usually a wasted vote. Vote for them in Germany and you're directly affecting the Bundestag as the Greens have 8.9% of the vote, and hence 9.4% of the seats.
---

 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   
 To:  ANT_THOMAS     
42034.19 In reply to 42034.14 
quote: ANT_THOMAS
You're comparing totally different electoral and political systems. In Germany (and the UK) people are voting for parties (or local representatives) and not individuals (presidents), meaning the leader of the largest party is generally the one who assumes the top position. Whereas in the States you have a Presidential election.

It is similar in the UK where 57.6% of the population didn't vote for the party in power. But also in the US 53.9% of the population didn't vote for the current president.

At least in Germany it is proportional and they are forced to enter coalition governments. And a proportional system allows a more diverse lineup of political parties, rather than a 2 party system, because there is a realistic chance of representation.

I think that this concept of "voting for a party" to be in congress and then the congress selecting the President was done in the US at one time.  It didn't work out that well, as the party bosses picked the president and the usual corruption was even worse than the current system of an electoral college.

The US is not fundamentally a 2 party system, that is just a result of crooked politics and crooked election laws that tend to push out smaller parties.

In CA it is perhaps even worse, because the election laws are written so that they take the results of the primary elections and only forward the "two top candidates in vote count" to the final election.  This resulted in eliminating not only third parties like the Greens, Libertarians, Independents, etc - but largely even eliminated the Republican party from many offices.

We get the pleasure of voting for one of two Democrats - which is pretty ridiculous no matter your political views.

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
42034.20 In reply to 42034.16 
> As far as having a sense of nationalism, I don't see that as a bad thing.

Except for when it's the absolute worst thing ever, which it almost always is.

 

> ..perhaps Germany needs a bit more of it.

¬_¬ Yeah, because who cares about 82 million deaths?

I suppose the British, French, Spanish. US, Middle Eastern Countries never did anything regrettable in their history?

How many of these countries construct monuments to the evil of their past Monarchs and the millions who died from their attempts to conquer the world?

How many countries and regions of the world are messed up even today as a result of historical colonialism, and essentially rape of natural resources via slavery of the local population?

Am I personally responsible for some land developer in the 1800s bribing congressmen to confiscate native American tribal lands, to the extent that I have to go to confession every day and feel like I am a terrible person?  No way.

The reality is that nearly every country has done this at one time or another in it's past, and we all must learn to move beyond it.  

 

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Manthorp  
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      
42034.21 In reply to 42034.19 
Quote: 
The US is not fundamentally a 2 party system, that is just a result of crooked politics and crooked election laws that tend to push out smaller parties.

Same in the UK, though I'd not describe it as crooked, just outmoded: the FPTP system throws the majority of votes away in every constituency - I think I'm right in saying that no post-WW2 government has actually won a majority of the votes cast.

I'm a passionate advocate for a proportional representation vote: Every vote cast counts towards the balance of MPs in government.  Yes, you'll get a handful of wankers of every stripe, but a) that's a price of representative democracy worth paying, I think and b) to some extent the extreme right wingers cancel out the communists and the anarchists cancel out the libertarians.

It would take some time to get used to: the UK has had an spurious adversarial two-party system for too long, where the true representation of opinion is far more complicated & nuanced (as I'm sure it is in the US, as you suggest).

If you want reasonably balanced, reasonably decent journalism, try the Tory-supporting Telegraph (pay-walled after a number of articles per month) and the Labour-supporting Guardian (free advertisement paid access).

"We all have flaws, and mine is being wicked."
James Thurber, The Thirteen Clocks 1951
 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  patch  
 To:  ALL
42034.22 In reply to 42034.21 
Over here in Godzone, they use mixed-member (Y, J) proportional representation, same as Scotland and Wales, with the added complication of Maori seats. The current result is that National and Labour (think Tories and Labour) have won all but one of the constituencies, but neither of them have enough for a majority government on their own, so until sometime in October (when the foreign and postal votes are done being counted) everyone is speculating on which party will make a deal with either the Greens or New Zealand First, both of them having enough seats to bring the total above 61 seats.

The only problem is that the Greens are seen as a waste of time, but NZ First are the local equivalent of a toned-down UKIP. Mind you, the head of NZ First is in his seventies, so maybe if they just drag it out a bit, he might not be around to be quite such a dick any more.

Having said all that, the government was dissolved over a month ago before the election, and we're muddling along with no-one in charge quite nicely so far. Makes you wonder why they bother.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      
42034.23 In reply to 42034.20 
> I suppose the British, French, Spanish. US, Middle Eastern Countries never did anything regrettable in their history? ...

If you look up, you might spot what I'm saying flying way above your head.


> Am I personally responsible for...? No way.
>
> The reality is that nearly every country has...

You are not a country!


> ... we all must learn to move beyond it.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   
 To:  ALL
42034.24 
In the news - the various German political parties failed to form a coalition.

I can see how the various minority parties would view it all - for them, it is a rare opportunity for a strong negotiating position.

It will be interesting to see if Merkel needs to resign to bring it together, a new election, or something else.

Perhaps they need the AFD after all?

In the meantime, Germany runs along just fine with minimal need for a lot of Federal level steering and new laws + taxes.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS  
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      
42034.25 In reply to 42034.24 
It's only been 2 months. It's not like they're not collecting taxes.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   
 To:  ALL
42034.26 
At least from the news we receive in the US, it looks like the government is coming together.

It is a funny sort of deal - it appears that more or less the concept is to "pay off" other parties to join into the government.  A combination of positions and special interest funding for pet projects and concepts.

I am sure that it goes on everywhere, I am just not used to it being so obvious.  It gives the impression that more or less Merkel is selling off policy to stay in power.

Seems like a dangerous game to play for the long term, as it increasingly alienates the right end of the party.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS  
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      
42034.27 In reply to 42034.26 
It's called compromise. If you want to form a coalition government then all parts of that government will require some of their policy ideas being made reality. Otherwise what is the point of them agreeing to being part of a coalition government if they are unable to actually act as part of the government?

It's nothing new nor sinister. It's what happens in countries with more proportional election systems that result in the requirement of a coalition being formed. Usually leads to a more moderate and centre policy direction. And potentially much more stable.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)  
 To:  ANT_THOMAS     
42034.28 In reply to 42034.27 
Or it leads to nutjobs like the DUP having a cudgel on your gummint.
“hooliganism comes to lawn bowling”
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)     
42034.29 In reply to 42034.28 
That's more a problem with the Tories and Theresa May, who were both already comfortable doing business with terrorist supporters and human rights abusers, so their eagerness in paying the DUP to prop her up shouldn't be a surprise.

I know almost nothing about German politics, but it appears their coalitions are at least done with the major parties - not ones who had less than 1% of the vote - so have a greater chance of being somewhat representative.

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All  
 

1–20  21–32

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats