The one change that would most benefit our country.

uscitizen said:
I guess you missed my post where bush put in world food aid funding into the Iraq war funding bill ?

It is a tactic in the usa, if you have a bill that you want passed but it is iffy, iclude something about starving children or somesucy in it so you can claim that anyone who votes against it is against helping starving children.
Click to expand...

I missed it indeed.

That's an amazing situation you have, no wonder I keep reading about various people railing against "pork" and "stuffing" bills, I had no idea that sort of legislative conjuring actually happened. I'm better educated now and I thank you for it.
 
Diuretic said:
Yes. And so do all the states and territories. A bill is proposed by a member and it has to be drafted according to parliamentary rules and that drafting is under the supervision of parliamentary counsel. If something in there isn't directly relevant to the point of the bill then it's not allowed to be included.

I'm still stunned.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and we all sit and stomach it all the time.
 
Diuretic said:
Yes. And so do all the states and territories. A bill is proposed by a member and it has to be drafted according to parliamentary rules and that drafting is under the supervision of parliamentary counsel. If something in there isn't directly relevant to the point of the bill then it's not allowed to be included.

I'm still stunned.
Click to expand...

Do bills get done in a timely manner down under? I have wondered about the ability for the two side to negociate and get things done if we had a law like this. I think I may have just changed my mind on this one if it seems to be workable in your country.
 
South Carolina actually passed into law a bill that made English the official and only language, as a rider on a bill that had to do with municipal waste. Funny thing is, they can't even find out who did it.
 
Desh said:
Do bills get done in a timely manner down under? I have wondered about the ability for the two side to negociate and get things done if we had a law like this. I think I may have just changed my mind on this one if it seems to be workable in your country.
Click to expand...

They don't negotiate. In Australia, the majority has the government. It cuts down signifigantly on wasted parliamentary time and procedures and the opposite party constantly clogging the wheels like they do in our system. But Americans don't like to acknowledge the existence of parties, so we'd rather have a dysfunctional legislature.
 
Desh said:
Do bills get done in a timely manner down under? I have wondered about the ability for the two side to negociate and get things done if we had a law like this. I think I may have just changed my mind on this one if it seems to be workable in your country.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the process is more timely and I wouldn't say it's superior, but I do know that a bill can't be stuffed in the manner I've read about here. This is an education for me.

The process in a bicameral parliament is a bit of a tortuous process and I won't bore everyone with it but I think our rigid party system has a lot to do with it. Our parliamentarians don't have the ability to negotiate with one another across party lines (or their party whips will take them out the back and beat them with rubber hoses) so I would think that's a big difference in terms of speed. A Bill here (later an Act) isn't referred to by its authors (Sarbanes-Oxley comes to mind), it's given a long title and a short title and that's it, the proponent isn't even remembered except in the Hansard.

I would think that the average American would be horrified at the strict party discipline in our parliaments (state/territory and federal), members are under tight control or they could find themselves dismissed from the party and disendorsed.

Prohibiting the stuffing of a bill is a statutory interpretation/construction issue that might be looked at but - and no I'm not surrendering to Indisputable - isn't for me to comment on.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
They don't negotiate. In Australia, the majority has the government. It cuts down signifigantly on wasted parliamentary time and procedures and the opposite party constantly clogging the wheels like they do in our system. But Americans don't like to acknowledge the existence of parties, so we'd rather have a dysfunctional legislature.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't see this before I blurted. You're quite right about how it works here but I did make the point about strict party discipline. That's a bit of a two-edged sword at times I think. There are occasions (this would make the average American politician horrified) when the party will allow a "conscience vote" for its members. Topics with a significant moral dimension - eg euthanasia - are sometimes given a conscience vote. The irony is that freed from the rigid discipline of party platform and policy the speeches are far better than the set pieces they usually give because, horror of horrors, they are actually speaking from personal conviction. I've seen members in tears (real ones, not crocodile tears) explaining their personal experiences in those debates. At times like that you see politics at its best.

I'd like to see some relaxing of the iron grip of party politics here but trust me, it ain't gonna happen.
 
Diuretic said:
Sorry I didn't see this before I blurted. You're quite right about how it works here but I did make the point about strict party discipline. That's a bit of a two-edged sword at times I think. There are occasions (this would make the average American politician horrified) when the party will allow a "conscience vote" for its members. Topics with a significant moral dimension - eg euthanasia - are sometimes given a conscience vote. The irony is that freed from the rigid discipline of party platform and policy the speeches are far better than the set pieces they usually give because, horror of horrors, they are actually speaking from personal conviction. I've seen members in tears (real ones, not crocodile tears) explaining their personal experiences in those debates. At times like that you see politics at its best.

I'd like to see some relaxing of the iron grip of party politics here but trust me, it ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

I also dislike tight party discipline. That's one of the advantages I think the American system has.

However, in the current state, trying to have Democrats and Republicans compromise with each other so much is, frankly, ridiculous. All they do whenever given minority power is to fillibuster the majority and make sure nothing gets done.
 
Watermark said:
Basically, I'd really like something that's mixed in between the American and parliamentary systems.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this on my way home (on the bus, it's okay, I wouldn't threaten other road users by think-driving).

I would not like the US system where the members can sort of hatch out little bills and plots with each other across party lines. I would feel pissed on from a great height if that went on.

I vote for a party platform, not the individual MP. I appreciate the sentiment in Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol but I want to know that if I cast a vote for someone purporting to represent a platform that they're not going to slid off it first chance they get.

But our system does have too much party rigidity to it. I won't go on about it here but in the various states/territories here political parties are run like fiefdoms and hereditary bloody fiefdoms at that. That leads to corruption.

Yes, a hybrid would be a fine thing.

After all we did it here with our commonwealth parliament. Our lower house is more or less similar to the Commons in Westminster, but our upper house (Senate) is similar to the US model in that the state/territory returns Senators based on a quota of votes (although the intent to have the state/territory represented has been done over big time by the party system).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top