Comments on: Barack Obama wants a National CTO

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:25:12 +0000

I think that it would be pretty difficult for Sol even in a safe seat. That said, at least it would give a group of voters a chance to approve him, something that no-one ever had a chance to do with Rumsfeld.

Actually, I can think of one situation where someone really unpopular could be parachuted into the ministry – via a Senate resignation. I’ve never been too keen on the way Senate vacancies are filled between elections in Australia (ie, the party who held the seat nominates someone).

It really should go to a statewide by-election.

By: etbe

etbe — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:11:18 +0000

Paul: If Sol was given a “safe” Liberal seat then it would probably be possible to get him elected even now. Before he became so unpopular he would easily have got elected.

Note that Donald Rumsfeld lost his job when he became too unpopular.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:36:26 +0000

Yes, I understand how the systems work. But I disagree with you that it’s not much less democratic; it is much, much less democratic. At least, under a Westminster system, a minister is chosen from a pool of people who were effectively approved by the public.

As an example, take someone who is truely despised by most of the public. A good example is probably Sol Trujillo, the CEO of Telstra. If he were an Australian citizen, he would have no hope in hell of ever becoming a minister, simply because he is so unpopular, he would be incapable of winning a seat.

In the US, however, this would be no obstacle to him. In fact, given some of the people who have been in the executive in the past and present, his unpopularity would probably be looked upon favourably.

By: etbe

etbe — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:30:46 +0000

Paul: In the Westminster system (as used in Australia) the cabinet is composed of people who have been elected to parliament and who are then chosen (by arbitrary and secret criteria) by the party which wins a majority.

So for any given cabinet position in Australia the person who gets it was elected to Parliament by their local constituents and then received the cabinet position mostly by being liked by the PM.

The fact that Donald Rumsfeld was never voted for by anyone doesn’t make his appointment much less democratic than someone from a Labour “safe seat” in the current Australian cabinet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government

According to the above page the US Federal government is comprised of the executive branch (the President), the legislative branch (congress and the senate), and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court).

Bush’s opinion of the rest of the world is well known (we either blindly obey him or we are considered the enemy). The Supreme Court judges don’t tend to comment on such things, and I am not aware of any representative in the US congress or Senate who has said such things other than Barack Obama. Please let me know if you have any evidence to the contrary.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:56:18 +0000

Actually, that’s an interesting point. In a system like the US’s, where the executive is separate from the parliament, who is classed as the government? The party with control of the executive, or the party with control of the parliament?

I won’t go into my contempt for a system where people like Donald Rumsfeld can get power without ever having been elected to the position that he was in…

By: etbe

etbe — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:33:42 +0000

Toby: He is a senator from Illinois, that counts as being in the US government.