Yokohammer wrote:I thought gerrymandering was tweaking district borders to gain political advantage. What am I missing ...
You are missing that this definition seems to equal vote buying in Salty's universe.
Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Yokohammer wrote:I thought gerrymandering was tweaking district borders to gain political advantage. What am I missing ...
wagyl wrote:Yokohammer wrote:I thought gerrymandering was tweaking district borders to gain political advantage. What am I missing ...
You are missing that this definition seems to equal vote buying in Salty's universe.
wagyl wrote:Yokohammer wrote:I thought gerrymandering was tweaking district borders to gain political advantage. What am I missing ...
You are missing that this definition seems to equal vote buying in Salty's universe.
wagyl wrote:Before I spend time crafting a considered response, please tell me: Was that post after sake or not?
wagyl wrote:OK, I'm game.
The adjustment of electoral boundaries, which while still lying within the limits of what is constitutional, are designed to favour one political party over another.
I give you one guess. Which am I referring to? A gerrymander, or the urban-rural vote value imbalance in Japan?
Bonus question: do either of them involve the transfer of economic value?
And most importantly: show your reasons.
I have no patience for people who avoid questions about the meanings of their posts by claiming that they had been drinking.
Nope - gerrymander is not transfer of an economic value. But are you trying to say that because some other place stinks, vote buying doesn`t? Your logic is a bit smelly.
wagyl wrote:OK, does vote buying involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter?
Salty wrote:I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.
Salty wrote:This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more. The storage of the frozen and unwanted whale residue is also an LDP vote program - employment for LDP voters.
Salty wrote:I have never said that the parties differed (so far) in what they say about fisheries.
Salty wrote:This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more. The storage of the frozen and unwanted whale residue is also an LDP vote program - employment for LDP voters.
Salty wrote:I have been clear about the meaning of my posts
wagyl wrote:I brought up gerrymanders in a post which quoted Matsuki, and in direct reference to his comment deprecating Japanese democracy, to illustrate that the democracy in the United States may not be perfect either. it is a running gag with Matsuki, him criticising Japan by pointing out issues it has, all the while the United States having equivalent issues. I think the two of us almost expect the conversation to go that path every single time.
Salty wrote:I had not mentioned gerrymandering until you – out of thin air, suggested that I equated it with vote buying.
matsuki wrote:wagyl wrote:I brought up gerrymanders in a post which quoted Matsuki, and in direct reference to his comment deprecating Japanese democracy, to illustrate that the democracy in the United States may not be perfect either. it is a running gag with Matsuki, him criticising Japan by pointing out issues it has, all the while the United States having equivalent issues. I think the two of us almost expect the conversation to go that path every single time.
Sorry to chime in but just wanted to say I have plenty of similar criticisms of the US system...though they do not excuse what goes on here. (or protection of failing endeavors like butter production)
wagyl wrote:So vote buying must involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter, and the intentional maintenance of voter disparities does not involve the transfer of economic value to a prospective voter.
Therefore, the intentional maintenance of voter disparities is not vote buying.
You can perhaps understand the difficulty in understanding what you have said earlier withSalty wrote:I did say the LDP buys votes thru support of whaling AND by vote suppression/vote value manipulation.
And perhaps even more when the original statement which started this all off had absolutely no mention of vote value imbalance. I quote it in full:Salty wrote:This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more. The storage of the frozen and unwanted whale residue is also an LDP vote program - employment for LDP voters.
Even if we were all expected to have a crystal ball and understand that that post was all about vote imbalance (which we have established is not vote buying) we are left with the concept that support for whaling is vote buying, even though we have also established that all major parties support whaling, and indeed you yourself saySalty wrote:I have never said that the parties differed (so far) in what they say about fisheries.
which does confuse me still in the light ofSalty wrote:This whale hunt - is not a whale hunt. It is an LDP vote hunt, and nothing more. The storage of the frozen and unwanted whale residue is also an LDP vote program - employment for LDP voters.
If it is possible at all for you to clear that up........
I can see that you have a beef with electoral vote value imbalance. That is probably a legitimate beef. But it still has nothing at all to do with whaling, since all the parties have the same position on whaling. And it also has nothing to do with vote buying. So I do wonder what you have been trying to say.
In fact, I go so far as to disputeSalty wrote:I have been clear about the meaning of my posts
I am not the only one who sought clarification from you.
Salty wrote:Greater than the vote buying, including that of support for whaling.
Samurai_Jerk wrote:The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.
Since 1947, the Prime Minister of Japan has been chosen in the "designation election of the prime minister" (naikaku sōridaijin shimei senkyo, 内閣総理大臣指名選挙) in the National Diet. It is held when the cabinet resigns or the post of prime minister has fallen vacant; a cabinet must resign en masse under the constitution in the first Diet session after a general election of the House of Representatives, if a no-confidence vote in the House of Representatives is not answered by the dissolution of the chamber or if the prime minister is incapacitated, e.g. by death, illness, kidnapping or defection. Though both Houses of the Diet vote in two-round elections to select a prime minister, the House of Representatives has the decisive vote: If the two Houses vote for different candidates (as they did in 1948, 1989, 1998, 2007 and 2008), a procedure in the joint committee of both houses (ryōin kyōkaigi) may reach a consensus; but eventually the candidate of the House of Representatives becomes that of the whole Diet and thereby prime minister-designate. The designated prime minister must still be ceremonially appointed by the Emperor in the Imperial Investiture (shinninshiki) to enter office; but unlike some heads of state, the Emperor has no reserve power to appoint anyone other than the person elected by the Diet.
In 2001, LDP president and prime minister Jun'ichirō Koizumi instituted an advisory council to investigate the possibility of introducing direct popular election of the prime minister in a constitutional revision
matsuki wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.
I think in some cases you guys are reading that into my statements, regardless of my intent.
Anyhow, do you not find this aspect of Japanese governance...uniquely terrible?Since 1947, the Prime Minister of Japan has been chosen in the "designation election of the prime minister" (naikaku sōridaijin shimei senkyo, 内閣総理大臣指名選挙) in the National Diet. It is held when the cabinet resigns or the post of prime minister has fallen vacant; a cabinet must resign en masse under the constitution in the first Diet session after a general election of the House of Representatives, if a no-confidence vote in the House of Representatives is not answered by the dissolution of the chamber or if the prime minister is incapacitated, e.g. by death, illness, kidnapping or defection. Though both Houses of the Diet vote in two-round elections to select a prime minister, the House of Representatives has the decisive vote: If the two Houses vote for different candidates (as they did in 1948, 1989, 1998, 2007 and 2008), a procedure in the joint committee of both houses (ryōin kyōkaigi) may reach a consensus; but eventually the candidate of the House of Representatives becomes that of the whole Diet and thereby prime minister-designate. The designated prime minister must still be ceremonially appointed by the Emperor in the Imperial Investiture (shinninshiki) to enter office; but unlike some heads of state, the Emperor has no reserve power to appoint anyone other than the person elected by the Diet.
In 2001, LDP president and prime minister Jun'ichirō Koizumi instituted an advisory council to investigate the possibility of introducing direct popular election of the prime minister in a constitutional revision
matsuki wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.
I think in some cases you guys are reading that into my statements, regardless of my intent.
Samurai_Jerk wrote:matsuki wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.
I think in some cases you guys are reading that into my statements, regardless of my intent.
It's not what we're reading into it, it's what you're writing.
wagyl wrote:No. Not unique at all. Look at the Westminster System, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminst ... _countries Perhaps Japan is a little different in that the Upper House does have some say in the selection of Prime Minister, but I don't think that is a material difference in what you are talking about.
I'm not sure it is so terrible a situation either. Less ongoing disputes between the legislature and the executive over supply/allocation of budget, and no televised debates involving Donald Trump over endless years of expensive campaigning. The Electoral College is not direct election either (continuing our "US does it wrong too" theme. Thanks for leaving that in for me!)
matsuki wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:matsuki wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:The issue isn't your criticism of Japan. It's your only-in-Japan attitude towards things that aren't unique to Japan.
I think in some cases you guys are reading that into my statements, regardless of my intent.
It's not what we're reading into it, it's what you're writing.
Where did I write anything like "unlike the US?"
matsuki wrote:wagyl wrote:No. Not unique at all. Look at the Westminster System, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminst ... _countries Perhaps Japan is a little different in that the Upper House does have some say in the selection of Prime Minister, but I don't think that is a material difference in what you are talking about.
I'm not sure it is so terrible a situation either. Less ongoing disputes between the legislature and the executive over supply/allocation of budget, and no televised debates involving Donald Trump over endless years of expensive campaigning. The Electoral College is not direct election either (continuing our "US does it wrong too" theme. Thanks for leaving that in for me!)
...and they all have the inspiring track records like this?
18 resignations.....7 in the past 10 years
wagyl wrote:Why did you go to the effort of typing the word "Japanese" before the word "democracy" then, if not to indicate that Japan is a special case?
wagyl wrote:Really? All those 30 other countries (i.e., roughly 15% of national governments on the planet) with prime ministers chosen by parliament and cabinet executives have a revolving door leadership? Do you really think that Japan will suddenly get stable leadership if there are direct leader elections? Maybe you want 8 years of Ishihara, I'm not so sure myself. And since when is long living leadership a sign of a healthy government system?
Actually, I take that last question back. We should all be more like Zimbabwe.
Wage Slave wrote:However, personally, I get the feeling that the political culture here, at least in recent years, would bend any constitutional framework to their many narrow partisan ends and in the process produce an unstable mess.
matsuki wrote:wagyl wrote:Why did you go to the effort of typing the word "Japanese" before the word "democracy" then, if not to indicate that Japan is a special case?
I do think Japan is a special case. I'm just pointing out that I'm not trying to make the case that the US is much better. They are both uniquely terrible.wagyl wrote:Really? All those 30 other countries (i.e., roughly 15% of national governments on the planet) with prime ministers chosen by parliament and cabinet executives have a revolving door leadership? Do you really think that Japan will suddenly get stable leadership if there are direct leader elections? Maybe you want 8 years of Ishihara, I'm not so sure myself. And since when is long living leadership a sign of a healthy government system?
Actually, I take that last question back. We should all be more like Zimbabwe.
How many of those countries are really fair to compare with Japan? (Don't say Zimbabwe, General Butt Naked may care to differ)
Out of those, do any of them have the same musical chairs situation going on with the PM? Do those PMs resign over anything and everything? Is "when shit gets tough or you lose popularity, assume no risk or responsibility, take no action, just bow the fuck out" the right message to send to the populace?
wagyl wrote:Matsuki wrote:wagyl wrote:Actually, I take that last question back. We should all be more like Zimbabwe.
How many of those countries are really fair to compare with Japan? (Don't say Zimbabwe, General Butt Naked may care to differ)
Zimbabwe is not a Westminster style government, so I think it is out of contention. It does, however, have remarkable presidential stability.
wagyl wrote:And for balance, lets look at a presidential example. I present for your entertainment, Repubblica Italiana. If only I could get gelato in so many flavours.
matsuki wrote:Ok Wags, in your words, what is wrong with the J-gov?
Samurai_Jerk wrote:Salty, for the record your problem isn't run-on sentences.
wagyl wrote:Salty wrote:Greater than the vote buying, including that of support for whaling.
So whaling is vote buying again? Or is this a run on sentence?
Tangentially, in my view, the biggest threat to Japanese democracy is the campaigning restrictions, where political debate is reduced to broadcasting the name of the candidate and asking for support. If they can't tell the voters what they stand for, how can the voters make a choice?
I like your support of a political party which makes a promise to continue whaling only as a tool in the hopes that it can get a majority and then change the electoral system, and then once those means have achieved those ends, becomes anti-whaling. If anything is "vote buying" AKA obtaining votes, it is bait-and-switch policies! Boy is your gas station attendant going to be angry!
I think I can see where our difference is. I do not believe that ending political support for whaling will automatically remove vote disparity, nor do I believe that removing vote disparity will automatically end political support for whaling. You seem to have a vain hope that at least one of those is possible. In any event, you can perhaps understand why your sudden mention of one political party raised my question.
I think you can also understand my confusion in a thread about whaling where you, in effect, suddenly shout "Fuck LDP!" and nothing more, when in fact other political parties have the same policy. And when I ask about the whaling policies of other parties, you start talking about completely separate grievances you have with the party. As you say, you never did say anything about the policies on fisheries by the other parties differing.
I get it that you have a thing for the LDP. You mentioned them gratuitously before in the My Number thread, which was why my ears pricked up this time too. But however much the LDP gives you a hard-on, it is always going to be unrequited. They will never give you a reach around, and you will just end up with blue balls.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests