A Civilised Executive? (Food Banks Split)

[pErvinalia]

And around in circles we go. The original point we were trying to make to you is that the PM isn't the "head of government" in the same sense that the Prez is. The parliament is the "head of government" in the parliamentary system.

[Jason]

So supreme executive power derives from a mandate from parliament?

[Forty Two]

And around in circles we go. The original point we were trying to make to you is that the PM isn't the "head of government" in the same sense that the Prez is. The parliament is the "head of government" in the parliamentary system.

The parliament holds executive power. The head of governme is the Prime Minister. I.e., the Parliament is the executive branch and the legislative branch combined, and its "head" is the Prime Minister. Nobody disputes that, and it is an obvious point that does not need "explanation."

[pErvinalia]

It does, as you apparently don't get the distinction between the power of the President and the power of the Prime Minister after all.

[pErvinalia]

So supreme executive power derives from a mandate from parliament?

In our systems, yes (cognisant of the Queen technically being able to throw a spanner in the works).

[Forty Two]

It's that Queen bit that puts the icing on the democracy cake.

[pErvinalia]

That's actually the pertinent point, not whether the Prez or the PM is more democratically elected.

If my memory is correct, the model most favoured by Australians 20 odd years ago when we had the Republic referendum, was a Prez elected via the whole parliament (by a super majority, or something larger than a standard majority; and also some sort of majority from the states as well). The idea of a popularly elected Prez has never gained much traction here. I figure that's because of the circus that is the US presidential election. No one wants that here.

[Forty Two]

That's actually the pertinent point, not whether the Prez or the PM is more democratically elected.

Not when the point under discussion WAS whether one is more democratically elected than the other. I'm the one that raised the point, I should know. The fact that that you think a different point should be discussed doesn't make it more pertinent. Pertinence is a relative term -- pertinent to what?

If my memory is correct, the model most favoured by Australians 20 odd years ago when we had the Republic referendum, was a Prez elected via the whole parliament (by a super majority, or something larger than a standard majority; and also some sort of majority from the states as well). The idea of a popularly elected Prez has never gained much traction here. I figure that's because of the circus that is the US presidential election. No one wants that here.

Good for you. There's more than one democratic way to elect a head of government.

[pErvinalia]

Oh ffs. The point NEVER was President vs PM in terms of democratic vote. You misinterpreted Hermit's initial post in this thread when he wrote: "In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote." You thought he was saying that the PM is elected by direct popular vote. As shown by your reply: "The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament." You thought that the PM was the seat of executive power in the parliamentary system, when it is the parliament itself - a point Hermit had to explain to you multiple times. You (probably unwittingly) erected a strawman and then spent ages trying to knock it down.

[Forty Two]

Oh ffs. The point NEVER was President vs PM in terms of democratic vote.

Dude - I raised the point. That's the point I was talking about. If you wanted to change the subject, that's your problem.


You misinterpreted Hermit's initial post in this thread when he wrote: "In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote." [/quote] This was a thread spun off of another thread.

You thought he was saying that the PM is elected by direct popular vote. As shown by your reply: "The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament."

This is just a difference in use of the word "executive." I was referring to the executive officer (and that was the usage before Hermit posted). Saying the parliament is the executive is fine, but that's like saying the President is not the executive, but the executive branch of government is the executive.

You thought that the PM was the seat of executive power in the parliamentary system, when it is the parliament itself - a point Hermit had to explain to you multiple times. You (probably unwittingly) erected a strawman and then spent ages trying to knock it down.

No, I have at all times been aware that the parliamentary system holds both executive and legislative power. Yes it's the seat of executive power - and the head of that seat of power is the Prime Minister.

I'm sick of you bleating on on about this "explain multiple times." I've said this bit about the difference between Parliamentary system and the US system many times, and I've explained it. God you're an idiot. I swear, it's not even funny anymore.

[pErvinalia]

Bullshit. The first time you refer to a comparison between the Prez and a PM in terms of which one is more democratic is in THIS thread, not the preceding thread. And you mistakenly do it after misinterpreting what Hermit wrote. You do it in this post - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 1#p1691656 :

Oh, I understand alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't.

Not correct.

And note, you are replying to your own strawman. Hermit clearly is talking about "the executive", not the head of government. You fucked up. Be man enough to admit it.

[Forty Two]

Fuckwit - when I was referring to the fucking executive, I was referring to the head of government, you dishonest prick. Go fuck yourself.

[pErvinalia]

But Hermit wasn't. So you were erecting a strawman.

[pErvinalia]

When you wrote "Not correct", you were wrong. What Hermit said is absolutely correct.

Let me make it clear for you. The pertinent concern isn't that the PM isn't directly elected while the Prez sort of is. I know you think that's the pertinent concern, but it's misguided. The reason it is misguided is because 1 - the executive in parliamentary systems are elected by the people (with no involvement of an Electoral College like in the US executive); and 2 - the real democratic threat in the commonwealth parliamentary systems (or at least some of them like ours) is that technically an unelected monarch is the head of state. The threat to executive democratic legitimacy ISN'T the parliament electing the PM, it's an unelected monarchy in another country sitting as the head of state.

[Forty Two]

But Hermit wasn't. So you were erecting a strawman.

No, because I was arguing my point, which I started on the previous thread from which this was split. If you guys want to change my subject, that's your business. I'm sticking to the issue I raised.