Comments on: No more than two terms

By: John H

John H — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:02:19 +0000

“…or evil we can vote them out.”

Except, of course, when we don’t…

If I could tweak the 22nd amendment (establishing term limits for the presidency) I would give congress a one-time override for any particular president — not that such a change would have helped Clinton or Bush, but it would mean a popular (and presumably effective) president isn’t hung out to dry after six years.

By: Justine

Justine — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:12:53 +0000

Andrew: And that right there is the problem. The Queen is Queen only because she was born to it. That was her only qualification. That she’s turned out to be a good queen is fabulous. But it’s just a fluke. Other monarchs have been insane, stupid, or uninterested in their role. At least with democracy if the elected leader turns out to be insane, stupid, uninterested or evil we can vote them out.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:37:27 +0000

I seem to recall tony blair saying just before he left office that the queen was the only person he talked to on a regular basis who would give him an honest opinion about anthing political/policy.

i think he also said that when he became prime minister, he planned to stop giving the queen weekly briefings, but he quickly came to realize that meeting with her was more for his benefit than hers.

By: Kaleb

Kaleb — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:02:29 +0000

erm…what exactly does the queen do these days anyway?

By: janet

janet — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:52:24 +0000

How about this idea, courtesy of Mark Twain:

I urged that kings were dangerous. He said, then have cats. He was sure that a royal family of cats would answer every purpose. They would be as useful as any other royal family, they would know as much, they would have the same virtues and the same treacheries, the same disposition to get up shindies with other royal cats, they would be laughably vain and absurd and never know it, they would be wholly inexpensive; finally, they would have as sound a divine right as any other royal house, and “Tom VII., or Tom XI., or Tom XIV. by the grace of God King,” would sound as well as it would when applied to the ordinary royal tomcat with tights on.

By: serafina zane

serafina zane — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:20:55 +0000

oh my god, these people with ignorance of the beatles are scaring me. even worse than people who honestly think it’s spelled “beetles”. i grew up with the beatles—i could quote the yellow submarine movie (i love that thing) before i entered kindergarden. and i’m not old—i’m currently a freshman in high school. but *shiver* to have NOT HEard of the beatles?! (that was in all caps, btw) tis a fate worse than death. hey bulldog=absolutely excellent song in every way.

and even second terms tend to scare me, because you spend far too much of your first campaigning to win your second, and then you lose and have accomplished nothing, or you win and are now just some kind of globally useless “lame duck” president.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:15:32 +0000

I agree. I think it’s one of the few things wrong with ‘our way of doing it.’

I’m grateful that we have compulsory voting and for our nifty uncomplicated and traceable electoral/ballot process. And the fact you don’t have to be a gazillionaire to run for parliament, but a two term cap is what we need.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:01:12 +0000

voting is mandatory? really? damn. that is totally awesome. we need that. like, now.

By: Ally

Ally — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:57:29 +0000

Nope no magical horses lol this is what it said:
I know who the beatles are.. i’m 14. I don’t think i’ve ever not known about them.

If we were to vote for you, could we have awesome-ly fashionable shoes (and rid the world of the horrible ones). wait i couldnt vote bc i dont live in Australia.. shoot lol

By: Patrick, The Space Lord

Patrick, The Space Lord — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:44:08 +0000

Oz definitely has it right with mandatory voting though… people should be involved, this not voting crap is,well, crappy.

And don’t you have the ability to call an election when someone gets too stupid?

(for the record, I don’t vote because I have the right to not vote for stupid or dumb and I don’t feel like voting for myself. because I might win.)

By: niki

niki — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:37:34 +0000

ally did you mention ~~unicorns~~ ?

By: Ally

Ally — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:31:45 +0000

hey my comment didnt show up. It says its awaiting moderation for some reason but theres no links or anything bad. hmm

By: sylvia_rachel

sylvia_rachel — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:09:18 +0000

i agree that term limits are a very good thing. i’m not so keen on the idea of fixed terms, though. typically in canada we have a few irritating weeks of frantic electioneering before each election; in the us the frantic electioneering seems to go on for years, which i don’t think is an improvement…

By: niki

niki — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:03:46 +0000

karen the aussie senate is elected and I agree that is a much better idea to have an elected senate.

By: niki

niki — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:57:53 +0000

Justine: we are old beatles are old – calliope is alowed to not know who the beatles are if only we could have all had that pleasure – just kidding I loved the beatles for a very long time and dont think I discovered them until I was in my teens

By: calliope

calliope — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:19:31 +0000

i’m 11, and a couple of my friends don’t even know who the beatles are. sadness!

By: Karen

Karen — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:10:37 +0000

i think an elected senate is a good enough check on prime ministerial powers. the trouble in Canada is that the senate is appointed, not elected. don’t know about the Aussie senate.

By: Kadie-Wa

Kadie-Wa — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:01:35 +0000

i don’t know any of the beatles songs. I actually just learned that the beatles aren’t named after a bug.

i would vote for you to become queen! that would be cool. (I’m allready not into chocolate and coffee)

Australia has a democrocy, though don’t they?

By: Justine

Justine — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:56:03 +0000

How old are you? How could you have just discovered the Beatles?

By: calliope

calliope — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:55:13 +0000

really? not in the u.s.. i oly discovered them a few months ago.
(also, i was wondering when you would censer ————)

By: Justine

Justine — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:51:10 +0000

Calliope: The problem is that the Beatles are already mandatory.

By: calliope

calliope — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:44:49 +0000

don’t hurt ~~unicorns~~! they’re so awesome! (so are zombies, though, and zombie ~~unicorns~~ are the best of all).

also, no chocolate?!?!?! that would be horrible! never have queen justine.

thirdly, the beatles should be mandatory listening, not elvis.

By: niki

niki — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:38:45 +0000

or reversely, that just becasue someone is related to you doens’t mean they can’t help reverse the damage once you are taken over

By: Justine

Justine — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:00:40 +0000

Niki: I think you’ve just proven why monarchy is a bad idea. Just because someone’s related to me doesn’t mean they’d be fit to continue my fabulous rule after my demise.

By: niki

niki — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:56:13 +0000

If you are queen and some unforseen accident were to fall apon you, stopping you from leading in the maner in which you should. Then the crown would have to fall unpon me in which case I would nominate maureen to save ~~unicorns~~ from your murderous legislation, jail all zombies and remove elvis from and any recoding device that existed in the universe..