Australia's Election. A repost of the foulest degree, my source: /funny_pictures/4639136/How+democracy+really+works/ That guys source: Imgur. Tau may have a fan Filthy horrendous Intolerable foul repost
x
Click to expand

Australia's Election

Australia's Election. A repost of the foulest degree, my source: /funny_pictures/4639136/How+democracy+really+works/ That guys source: Imgur. Tau may have a fan

A repost of the foulest degree, my source: /funny_pictures/4639136/How+democracy+really+works/

That guys source: Imgur

Tau may have a fancy
new into this lake
of , name an!
Haw warts
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+659
Views: 37355
Favorited: 41
Submitted: 09/07/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to slias submit to reddit

Comments(119):

[ 119 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #5 - ttotheroll (09/07/2013) [+] (1 reply)
stickied
More for source: Creators are Wullfmorgenthaler
#1 - alenkt (09/07/2013) [-]
I may get some downvoted and sound tyranic but this is what I think.

Most of people votes based on populism and charisma. They don't care (or realize) about plans or a well structured organization of (eventual) goverment. They go after the ones who look better, speak better, and it's aligned to the political view. At all, most people doesn't have any clue of what they want or what's better (and most of the time neither does the politicians). I believe there is always people more qualified for that job and even if it's a small portion of people, they should have the right to decide about the important decisions and that really should be based on intelligence (the logical one, not the emotional one) and don't give a damn about the "majority".

But power corrupts people, even the good people and that's why democracy it's the best goverment system so far but with HUGE flaws that makes me think it's almost impossible for the human kind to develop a good system without abusing of it.

Pic somewhat related



#79 to #1 - gerfox ONLINE (09/08/2013) [-]
Just going to put this out here, and recommend it (if you have not already seen it). It's a British TV-show from the 80s called "Yes, Minister". It's really a comedy, but I imagine it also has quite deep roots in reality. The man on the picture is Sir Humphrey Appleby, one glorious ************ - he's the best thing about the show, and he also reminds us of the fact that governments doesn't necessarily govern alone (he's a civil servant), they have a huge civil service backing them in most countries, and often they set the final policy. It's brilliant in the series how Sir Humphrey often sway the opinions of his superior (the Minister), and almost every time gets it the way he wants
#88 to #1 - thorsballs (09/08/2013) [-]
How would western democracy be better than for example Chinese technocracy?
#95 to #1 - anon (09/08/2013) [-]
The best possible form of government would be a dictator. But only when the Dictator is the most intelligent individual on the planet, is extremely knowledgeable about relevant topics, is uncorrectable and aims to make us all better off.
#106 to #1 - anon (09/08/2013) [-]
I think Tony Abbott is an idiot but I still voted for his party.
#81 to #1 - anon (09/08/2013) [-]
Look at my new Prime Minister, Tony Abbott is a butt-ugly wart, who struggles to string a sentence together; and when he finally manages to do so, it either includes some sexist remark or something creepy like calling his daughters hot ( I kid you not, he actually did that)
#101 to #81 - anon (09/08/2013) [-]
Just goes to show what a complete disaster the Labor party were!
#3 to #1 - slias (09/07/2013) [-]
What you have described is essentially a meritocracy, and I tend to agree with you on that point.
User avatar #4 to #1 - akg **User deleted account** (09/07/2013) [-]
like ussr

#6 to #1 - taurusguy (09/07/2013) [-]
To be fair, there are people that are not corrupted by power, those that have never had it. I would say im incorruptible but i have never had enormous power.
User avatar #49 to #6 - misfitxcreepx (09/08/2013) [-]
Well of course people who haven't had power aren't corrupted by it, they haven't had it. How can you be corrupted by something you haven't had/experienced.

It's not until you have power that you become corrupted by it.
User avatar #15 to #1 - adu (09/08/2013) [-]
The way I see it, is you can have one massive government that makes massive breaches of civil liberties, or you can smaller decentralized authorities that have smaller, but more common violations of civil liberties. The problem I have with larger government is that the government itself is never accountable for its own actions. If taxes pay for a system that ends up failing, they are either taxed more, stuck with inflationary policies, or simply have to live with the fact that their money is wasted on a regular basis.
User avatar #28 to #1 - xdeathspawnx (09/08/2013) [-]
You pretty much just explained why Obama was elected. I also get upset when people decide to vote for a president only based of their stance on issues like abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc. and don't bother to learn about their plans for the economy.
#59 to #1 - somekindofname (09/08/2013) [-]
There should be a test about what someone stood for. If you got over 70% your vote counted and if not, well then better luck next years.
User avatar #7 to #1 - mitchr (09/07/2013) [-]
Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, other than all the other ones."

See, Democracy is broken. But many other forms of government are a lot, LOT more broken. What I personally think would be the ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The only flaw there is that there aren't enough benevolent dictators.

What we should do instead is have every profession in a given category (entertainment, medical, scientific, corporate, so on) elect the foremost leader of their profession. So, say, Gabe Newell, perhaps, would be voted up for the game industry. So on. Military would get its own person to vote up as well, but he would only have power in the event of war. Unemployed votes go towards the last industry they worked for.
Now that you have a democratically-elected government that would actually know what they're talking about, you just proceed to bring up important issues when they are important or before they are important, and tada, you created a probably-functional-government.

May need two or three people from each industry, though, so as to capture several educated viewpoints on the issue. Actually, yeah. That way, the military would not be in the hands of one person, and it'd be harder to overthrow in a coup d'etat.
#8 to #7 - hutty (09/07/2013) [-]
how would you manage the creation of new industries?
User avatar #9 to #8 - mitchr (09/07/2013) [-]
Simple. When a given industry reaches a certain level of income/GDP/net worth/something per year, they get their place in the government. Of course, if it originally falls within another category, like Entertainment, then it would have to prove to be significantly different in ways that would warrant their own official.
Which wouldn't be hard. I mean, games and music would be separate from entertainment.
#10 to #9 - hutty (09/07/2013) [-]
what if one industry has a large dissagreement ad splits into 2 parties for the same industry ... and then they both have enough net worth to have a place in the government
User avatar #11 to #10 - mitchr (09/07/2013) [-]
Thus having two or three different individuals per industry. Sort of like the consuls of Rome crossed with the party system of the US. If the two sections of the industry that split apart are different enough, then they would already be split up. Like, to continue the example, games splitting off from entertainment, as games are substantially different from movies.
#82 to #7 - gerfox ONLINE (09/08/2013) [-]
That's exactly what Mussolini did in inter-war Italy. Disbanded parliament, and replaced it with a council of some sorts consisting mostly of representatives from different industries. However, there are many democratic problems about this system. For instance the representatives from the different industries would usually come from only the major ethnic group in the country, and minority rights could be easily ignored. Furthermore the representatives from each and every industry would probably be so busy trying to make advantages for themselves, that they wouldn't see what would be the most profitable for the common good. Seems to me like the one that would scream the highest would get their wishes through.


The quote by Churchill is excellent, because it's completely true. The only better way of government is potentially dictatorship, but that relies too much on human factors to be even considered - and power corrupts easily. From the top of my head I can for instance mention Emperor Augustus, having absolute power - he was able to do a lot of things that we wouldn't be able to do even today in the same span of time with building, and bettering the way of life in the vast Roman Empire.
User avatar #122 to #82 - mitchr (09/08/2013) [-]
Yeah, one big flaw is that it kinda depends on altruism. Which is, in fact, a pretty major flaw.
User avatar #29 to #7 - xdeathspawnx (09/08/2013) [-]
I love that quote. People tend to complain about all of the things they dislike about the government, but then have no idea what a better and also realistic solution would be.
User avatar #30 to #29 - mitchr (09/08/2013) [-]
Yeah. See, Winston Churchill knew: Democracy has flaws. A lot of flaws. Some pretty major ones, too, if you ask me.

But I'd rather take a bullet to the chest than a tank shell to the head.
#89 to #29 - thorsballs (09/08/2013) [-]
Chinese technocracy?
User avatar #13 - quantumlegend ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
Before U.S. discussion start, I just want to mention that the U.S. is a Democratic Republic, which means leaders and representatives are democratically elected to make laws for the people. Also there are many checks, such as the electoral college, to make sure that in case a big portion of stupid grabs hold, it can still be counteracted.
This exists as opposed to a pure Democracy, which would mean that the people get to directly vote for policies, which would result in the majority decision, be that good or terrible. If America were a Democracy we would've fallen apart before we started.
User avatar #26 to #13 - warburg (09/08/2013) [-]
I'm probably going to get called a eurofag for this but the US isn't really different from any other western democratic nation in this regard.(except maybe Switzerland) We ALL have checks and balances and the idea of the separation of powers was used as far back as ancient Rome and Greece, though it was first formalized by a Frenchie named Montesquieu.
The fact of the matter is that while we elect representatives to take make the decisions for us, we still have the power to remove them from power if they do anything that displease us, which makes them, for the most part, pawns to the general populace's whims and desires.
TL;DR: The lava analogy works, even in a representative democracy.
#16 to #13 - wheresmymarbles (09/08/2013) [-]
exactly. the US is currently the oldest government in the world because it was founded as a republic. it is arguably the most stable form of government.
#53 to #35 - jdoggpwns (09/08/2013) [-]
I really miss this show..
I really miss this show..
#39 to #35 - darthblam (09/08/2013) [-]
Hah!

I miss Chowder...
#40 to #35 - sirbutterballs (09/08/2013) [-]
You are a wonderful person for making this.
#73 to #35 - joktapuss (09/08/2013) [-]
I can't wait for the next season of Field-Tournament-Style-Up-and-Down-On-The-Ground-Manja-Flanja-Blanja-Banja-Ishka -Bibble-Babble-Flabble-Doma-Roma-Floma-Boma-Jingle-Jangle-Every-Angle-Bricka-Bra cka-Flacka-Stacka-Two-Ton-Rerun-Free-for-All-Big-Ball!
#58 - XboxJunky (09/08/2013) [-]
Mfw Tony Abbott won the election.
#61 to #58 - badboycoen (09/08/2013) [-]
Our Country...
#124 to #58 - zsabber ONLINE (09/08/2013) [-]
Every time I hear the name Abott, I remember Daddy Long Legs...
+5
#71 - princessren has deleted their comment [-]
#2 - mudkipfucker ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
Im not sure i like the tags on your source
#63 - helenwheels (09/08/2013) [-]
I cannot speak for Australia but I know that the main problem with america as a democracy is that its too damn big. There are a plethora of different regions of people who are separated form each other and want different things I.E. the people of the deep south and the people of the northwest on average have completely different values, yet both of them are affected by each others votes of a federal level. A compromise that satisfies no one.
I cannot speak for Australia but I know that the main problem with america as a democracy is that its too damn big. There are a plethora of different regions of people who are separated form each other and want different things I.E. the people of the deep south and the people of the northwest on average have completely different values, yet both of them are affected by each others votes of a federal level. A compromise that satisfies no one.
User avatar #65 to #63 - flemsdfer ONLINE (09/08/2013) [-]
It's like we'd have to separate the country into districts with different rules of living to make people happy and let them choose what settings they want to live in.
User avatar #66 to #65 - helenwheels (09/08/2013) [-]
Well we could allow states to operate on a smaller scale and restrict federal government to the basics.
User avatar #67 to #66 - flemsdfer ONLINE (09/08/2013) [-]
I think that's what we've needed for a long time. Big government does good with the basics, but they've been trying to stick all of their fingers in every pie and it just gets too controlling and repressive since they don't know what the **** they are doing.
User avatar #83 to #67 - alhemicar (09/08/2013) [-]
Solution would be turning the US into a confederation
User avatar #84 to #83 - flemsdfer ONLINE (09/08/2013) [-]
That went real well last time. Kind of a shame too, when you think about it. We didn't like how government was so we broke off from the british and started our own country. Then later on we don't like how government is being run so we try to leave and suddenly it's all "Conform to us or die", and the confederacy was forced back into the United States. Like where the hell do we get off on this **** when you think back to the roots of things?
User avatar #90 to #84 - alhemicar (09/08/2013) [-]
Eh, you do understand the difference between the old confederation and the one I was talking about? I meant the whole US, not just some poor states that need ******* to work their fields.
User avatar #91 to #90 - flemsdfer ONLINE (09/08/2013) [-]
Yes, I understand it's not the same thing. Just kind of a look back at what happened when people tried to start over with something different and how it was treated, based on the raw principles of why they did it. The U.S. would go under martial law and everywhere would become a police state to make sure nothing changed if we tried to start something new like a confederacy. It's been shown before that leaving this ******** of a system and starting fresh is against the rules. Even though people would do it because they disagree that government isn't working how they think it should, which is actually in the constitution that we should step up and replace our government when it fails to work.

I think for something like this to really go over well is ALL the people would have to push for this and the military stand down from the government's side and take the people's and we pray some other country doesn't move to take over in our period of fighting.
User avatar #92 to #91 - alhemicar (09/08/2013) [-]
Whoah dude, I was just suggestion, I don't really care whatever happens to the US. Yeah, I get your point, but I'm not American.
User avatar #94 to #92 - flemsdfer ONLINE (09/08/2013) [-]
Well, not like I'm conspiring or recruiting. Just thinking if there was a chance for change in this country that'd be the kind of extreme things would have to go to in order to get it. We really ****** ourselves with this terrorism phobia of ours that led to such a high military budget. Kind of turns things into a prison slowly when you want the citizens around you to have less power and the guards to have it all.
User avatar #96 to #94 - alhemicar (09/08/2013) [-]
Sorry man, but I just find it hard to care about other countries's problems, my own has more than enough.
User avatar #98 to #96 - flemsdfer ONLINE (09/08/2013) [-]
With the way our government's going, **** we might just be your problem too in the future. They'll say "let's leave people alone on this issue" right after Nicolas Cage turns down a role.
User avatar #110 to #98 - alhemicar (09/08/2013) [-]
Wat?
User avatar #93 to #92 - alhemicar (09/08/2013) [-]
*giving a
#86 to #65 - anon (09/08/2013) [-]
Which was how it was supposed to be until the civil war came along, the civil war completely ****** up state's rights.
#108 - hatermrtroll (09/08/2013) [-]
**hatermrtroll rolled a random image posted in comment #3765394 at Friendly ** abott's hot daughter's face when her daddy won the election
User avatar #109 to #108 - fizzor (09/08/2013) [-]
Goddamn that picture is cringeworthy.
#116 to #109 - tacosattack (09/08/2013) [-]
Enlarging this image was a bad idea.
#100 - screaming (09/08/2013) [-]
"But you can't force me to jump into this lake of hot lava, as it's against my human rights!"

How the British justice system works.
User avatar #117 to #100 - gdikodiak (09/08/2013) [-]
its an allegory, the hot lava stands for bad decision.
it might be a wrong politic or insane economy choice in the real world.
User avatar #121 to #117 - screaming (09/08/2013) [-]
I was referencing what is now known as "Soft Justice" here in Britain, where a very easy way to get a reduced punishment for serious criminal acts (or to be prevented from deportation) is to say that it's against the person's human rights.
User avatar #22 - allennis (09/08/2013) [-]
You know what, lightbulb? Warts aren't funny. Also, who the **** is Tau and why does he have a new fancy of this lake?
User avatar #85 - finblob (09/08/2013) [-]
Everyone here thinks they're the smart guy...

most of you are wrong.
User avatar #99 to #85 - ivoryhammer (09/08/2013) [-]
I'll admit that I'm a dumbass.
#111 to #99 - slias (09/08/2013) [-]
And you are therefore the smartest of all of us.
#25 - SimianLich (09/08/2013) [-]
Ok, you guys first. I'll go last.
User avatar #14 - heartlessrobot (09/07/2013) [-]
Well, in the US, people don't even vote for the president, the electoral college does. Meaning, the people truly have no power over who gets elected for president.
#17 to #14 - flyslasher (09/08/2013) [-]
That's not true. You vote for representatives which in turn vote for the President. The middle-man helps stop the influence of stupid.
User avatar #18 to #17 - heartlessrobot (09/08/2013) [-]
OR they instead vote for whoever is in their best interests, instead of who is in the best interests of the people.
#19 to #18 - flyslasher (09/08/2013) [-]
And lose their constituency, not getting re-elected for their next term. And sometimes they even do so, but almost never for self interest.

It's a complicated system, no one is expecting you to understand the mechanics behind it which makes it more stable than one may think.
User avatar #20 to #19 - trystanvierra (09/08/2013) [-]
DUNK THE VOTE! That was a Key&Peele reference.
User avatar #24 to #17 - douthit (09/08/2013) [-]
Does it really? Look at our presidents.
#112 to #24 - flyslasher (09/08/2013) [-]
Relatively speaking, none of the Presidents have been stupid or acted stupid.
User avatar #44 - swagloon (09/08/2013) [-]
and that's why the USA is a Constitutional Republic
User avatar #57 to #44 - latinotornado (09/08/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure it's a Democratic Republic
User avatar #125 to #57 - swagloon (09/08/2013) [-]
And a nation it's a Constitutional Republic.
State level it's a Democratic.

Over all it's a Democratic Republic; so you're right.
#21 - anon (09/08/2013) [-]
The good thing about most democratic countries is that you can leave if you want The bad thing is that the only country you could go to that would give you more of an influence on the rules would be another democracy with a smaller population.
#76 - anon (09/08/2013) [-]
Australia became liberal, Norway tomorrow.
I don't like this.
User avatar #118 - CRONIK (09/08/2013) [-]
how the actual **** did Kevin rudd not win the election, seriously every person I have talked to about it has said Abbott is a cunt nugget
User avatar #113 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (09/08/2013) [-]
Hey look, the reason democracy is ******** .
They should make it so there is at least an IQ requirement to be able to vote.
0
#27 - jukuku has deleted their comment [-]
[ 119 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)