Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

constitutionnet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#81

Post by EarlKing »

hvusslax wrote: post #53
EarlKing wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes... that the rural proletariat is represented in government rather than yielding all decisions to the urban bourgeoisie. The American form of government was designed specifically to ensure a balance of interests rather than allowing one class to run roughshod over the other. It's a design feature, and a good one at that, no matter…

"What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes..." Arbitrary geographical lines don't define classes. Every state has both rural and urban segments. Is the "rural proletariat" of California better represented than the "urban bourgeoise" of Rhode Island in this system? It's an 18th century compromise where the justifications where invented after the fact. This seems to be true…

> Arbitrary geographical lines don't define classes.

No, but urbanization does, and some states are more suitable to dense settlement than others.

> Lots of mythology around the motives of the founding fathers and their supposedly great designs that don't really hold up to any scrutiny.

Likewise the jabs aimed at the founding fathers by people who have an obvious axe to grind (namely an imperialist one). You'll forgive me if I prefer not to reject constitutionalism because it conflicts with someone's preferred method of exploitation.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#82

Post by skissane »

dane-pgp wrote: post #13
ggm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia voted no. Many assume this was older anglo Australians who revere the Queen and hope for a re vote when Charles accedes to the throne. He's a nong, and has much less visible support, and even active opposition. I personally suspect it's the dichotomy of directly elected president or a chamber elected symbolic president which functionally is what the governor general is. Basically the republican vote was spl…

> a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative po…

> By limiting the president's powers to just vetoing legislation

The Irish President cannot veto legislation outright. If they have concerns about the constitutionality of legislation, they can refer it to the Supreme Court for an opinion on its constitutionality; they do not sign the legislation while the Court opinion is pending, but if the Court upholds its constitutionality, they must sign, and then the law enters into force anyway if they refuse.

They also have a never-used power to refer legislation to a national referendum instead of signing it. They cannot exercise this power on their own initiative, only when presented with a petition signed by a significant minority of Parliament. They’ve never been presented with such a petition. If they were, they’d have discretion whether to accept the petition and refer the legislation to a referendum, or ignore it and sign it anyway.

I think, if Australia was to have a directly elected President, we should copy the Irish model and grant the President only this limited veto power. The GG’s current power of veto is rather pointless in that it has never been used and it seems unlikely ever to be used. It is hard to conceive of a scenario in which a GG could use that veto power and survive in their office.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#83

Post by dane-pgp »

JamisonM wrote: post #79
dane-pgp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to rely on the school of thought that "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Perhaps you're right, and someone could be skilful enough as president to create crises, despite their limited power, and also trick people into thinking that the crises are someone else's fault, and still somehow able to take the credit when they solve these crises. On the other hand, I think such a belief requires one to hold…

I think this is a bit of a mischaracterization of my position but I do think you are arguing in good faith. I don't have a low view of the public or democratic processes, I have a high view of it! I look at the American political system and imagine a version of it where the president was the president but did not in fact operate the executive, that person's only job was the power of the veto - it seems like a nightma…

Sorry if I misunderstood your position, and thank you for clarifying it.

Personally I don't see why it would be a nightmare if the US president didn't operate the executive. I think voters would be a lot less worried about the "wrong" person getting elected if the president couldn't declare war or appoint SCOTUS judges, so this change might reduce some of the tribalism.

As you say, every political body has the power to create crises, and the electorate should quickly see through any deliberate attempts to create one, so there seems little risk that the minimal-president role I am suggesting would attract people motivated to cause trouble.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#84

Post by Guessnotgauss »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #3

This is a continuation of the story began in 1945 of the unwinding one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Decolonisation_... > Between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to 5 million, 3 million of whom were in Hong Kong.

Its great that the peoples from so many nations were liberated from the yoke of colonial oppresssion, "empire" was the misery of millions.

Why not move on? History has.

If we put aside the crimes of empire there is still a lot to forgive. People still remember what the British did in India, Kenya, Malaysia, when the empire was forced to let go.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes

This dosent mean you are responsible nor that you should feel guilty for something you had no part in.

Be proud of something else, how about the English language.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#85

Post by notfromhere »

EarlKing wrote: post #80
notfromhere wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not. Rural voters work the same types of jobs that their urban counterparts do. Rural doesn’t mean agriculture because that is a tiny fraction of the workforce. Poor rural voters work the same jobs that poor urban voters do (largely service or manufacturing). The urban “bourgeoisie” isn’t big enough to dictate anything as a voting bloc, but the “equal representation of classes” angle is a great way to justify su…

> Rural voters work the same types of jobs that their urban counterparts do. Really? I don't know many people working in the tech industry or high finance that live in suburbia or out in the country... DO YOU? This is just an excuse to disenfranchise people who refuse to vote your way, and it's disgusting.

Lol, tech and finance is not the majority of workers anywhere, even in San Francisco or New York.

In rural and urban areas, the split between service and manufacturing is pretty similar. Obviously, agriculture makes a bigger contribution but not by much.

What are you talking about suburbia? The suburbs of every major city are full of white collar workers in high finance, or tech. Even in New York, people commute from Westchester or Greenwich to their finance jobs in Manhattan. Most of the tech industry in Silicon Valley is literally in the suburbs. What a weird thing to say.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#86

Post by brodouevencode »

chmod600 wrote: post #10

Is the general wisdom that the executive function should be a separate co-equal branch of government (like the US), or controlled by the legislature (how I understand a parliamentary system)?

> a separate co-equal branch of government

To be honest the US hardly acts this way anymore. Presidents are treated more like monarchs than the CEOs they should be.

Post reply on HN