Venezuela: Voters Repeal Presidential Term Limits

[chequita guevara]

Chavez had the oldest opposition media channel, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) closed in 2007.

That's incorrect. Their license to broadcast was not renewed (because of their role in the coup d'etat), but they weren't closed. They continue on cable and satellite, just like FOXNews and CNN.

[chequita guevara]

How long did it take for Mugabe to become Mugabe?

It didn't take that long. Chavez has been President since 1999, all the while being accused of wanting to be a dictator. Yet, the only dictatorial actions have been by the opposition, who overthrew the government, abolished the national legislature, courts, and constitution, and declared a new government by fiat. Fortunately, they only lasted a weekend. Those are the people from whom Oerdin gets his news about Chavez.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Dude, Mugabe has held power since 1980. The international community didn't start paying attention until 1998.

[chequita guevara]

It probably won't work in the US, because the States consist of a two-party political landscape.

That is because the U.S. uses a first past post representation system. Whoever gets the most votes gets the seat. So any more than two parties insures two permanent losers and one permanent winner. We are institutionally driven towards two parties. That can be remedied with instant run off voting and proportional representation.

Baaad idea.

You end up with a legislature of seals with way to much power in the hands of a few, some of whom are unelected.

So, it's different how?

[Q=Felch;5533847]Yeah, seriously Che, that's not really a good idea.

First off, primaries exist because a party isn't just party leadership, it's every member of the party. That's why people have a say. I'm against open primaries, because they defeat that purpose, but closed primaries exist for a reason.[/q]

I have no problem with primaries, so long as they are primaries of actual members of the party, not just people who've expressed a preference for one of the other. If you want a voice on who the candidate should be, join the party, pay your dues, and be an actual member of the party, not just some guy with a party label on his voter's registration card.

Nothing says that strengthening the parties will get you real differences. The LDP is Japan is pretty damn strong, but that only turns it into a political machine that no longer has to listen to the voters.

True, but the parties don't listen to us now, so we've nothing to lose by changing the system, and nothing to gain by leaving it the way it is.

Public financing is yet another way of removing a popular check from the political process.

The public has little disposable money, in general. It is the businesses and institutions that have money to burn by spending it on politicians. Thus, it is businesses and institution to whom the parties and politicians listen.

[chequita guevara]

Dude, Mugabe has held power since 1980. The international community didn't start paying attention until 1998.

The massacre in Mtebeleland happened in 87 or 88. I think that's when you can say he was a dictator. Since he was only killing Africans, no one gave a ****. Once he decided he was going to take white people's land, that's when the international community cared. **** them.

[The Mad Monk]

So seven or eight years, then.

[chequita guevara]

Like I said, Chavez has been President for ten, and the only dictatorial acts were by his opponents.

[Traianvs]

That's incorrect. Their license to broadcast was not renewed (because of their role in the coup d'etat), but they weren't closed. They continue on cable and satellite, just like FOXNews and CNN.

Because of their alleged role in the coup d'etat. If you read up on it, it's a weak motive to stop the license, especially since two other news channels (Venevision and Televen) had their licenses prolonged since they became less critical of Chavez. Chavez' controlled station TVes instead used the RCTV infrastructure to broadcast their own propaganda.

Whatever the point of view of the dissidents, taking them off the air on the basis of that ludicrous argument that they 'supported' the coup constitutes an authoritarian trait that leads him well on the way to 1984-esque situations.

RCTV hasn't even been convicted in court or anything.

[chequita guevara]

No one has been convicted in court, because the government made a decision to grant amnesty or something like that (probably so as not to cause a civil war). All I know is that if CNN had been involved in a coup against Bush, there'd be no more CNN.

Furthermore, there's nothing alleged about it. RCTV and Globovision both misrepresented the news to claim that Chavez supporters were massacring Chavez opponents, which was, in fact, a pre-arranged signal by the coup plotters to take over. They were part of the plot.

[Traianvs]

That is because the U.S. uses a first past post representation system. Whoever gets the most votes gets the seat. So any more than two parties insures two permanent losers and one permanent winner. We are institutionally driven towards two parties. That can be remedied with instant run off voting and proportional representation.

Like every other non-US citizen, I've cried out for proportional representation before on this board. Winner takes all principles are fundamentally undemocratic imo since you're forcing people to choose sides with parties that don't even represent yourself. You basically need to choose the lesser evil (be that democratic or republican, depending on your point of view).

[Traianvs]

From wiki

On 11 April 2002, after three days of demonstrations, anti-Chávez and pro-Chávez demonstrators clashed at the Miraflores Palace. The government ordered the suspension of broadcasting by the privately-owned TV channels Televen, Venevisión, Globovisión and RCTV at around 4 p.m., shortly after they refused to carry a speech by President Chávez exclusively and used split screens to broadcast live pictures of the opposition demonstration being broken up at the same time as the president’s speech. Only the state-owned Venezolana de Televisión was allowed to continue broadcasting.[27][29][30]

After several shooting deaths, elements of the Armed Forces deposed President Hugo Chávez, whom they held responsible.[31][32] Commander of the Army, Lucas Rincón Romero, reported in a nationwide broadcast that Chávez had resigned his presidency,[31] a charge Chávez would later deny. Chávez was taken to a military base while Fedecámaras president Pedro Carmona was appointed as the transitional President of Venezuela.[31][33]

Without denying the coup, it's lame Chavez got pissed off. They merely used split screens for crying out loud. The sources, being quite credible, indicate it was live. Hard to tell the truth without knowing the details, but I'm relying on those sources then.

[notyoueither]

So, it's different how?

There are very real differences between Westminster and Ottawa that speak to this topic.

In the Canadian system, candidates need their nomination papers signed by the leader of their party and funding is largely centralised. Being kicked out of caucus and not having major party backing is nearly always a ticket out of politics, and is almost always a recipe for political irrelevance.

Due to the subversion of the system by the parties, nothing of consequence happens without the blessings of the leadership of the governing party when there is a majority, or parties when there is a minority. Parliamentary committees are nearly meaningless. Non government proposals (from the opposition, or the back benches of the ruling party) are simply ignored if convenient (they die because they are not allowed to come to a vote) or allowed if the leadership see no threat (they are largely pointless).

Canada has ended up largely with a system where our MPs are representing their parties to us, rather than representing their constituents in Ottawa.

Contrast this with Westminster, where MPs gave the sack to a sitting PM, Parliament is actually a place where policy needs to be discussed with give and take to win majorities on a case by case basis, and indivdual MPs can and do make stands with some effect.

Two identical systems for our purposes, and illustration of what goes wrong when parties gain too much power. The electors lose their representatives and gain apparatchiks who tell them what they will get. I can see the attraction for some.

[Felch]

That is because the U.S. uses a first past post representation system. Whoever gets the most votes gets the seat. So any more than two parties insures two permanent losers and one permanent winner. We are institutionally driven towards two parties. That can be remedied with instant run off voting and proportional representation.

Range voting is another option.

I have no problem with primaries, so long as they are primaries of actual members of the party, not just people who've expressed a preference for one of the other. If you want a voice on who the candidate should be, join the party, pay your dues, and be an actual member of the party, not just some guy with a party label on his voter's registration card.

That's reasonable. But we have rules against making people pay to vote in this country. The primaries would have to work around that.

True, but the parties don't listen to us now, so we've nothing to lose by changing the system, and nothing to gain by leaving it the way it is.

Actually you've got something to lose. Public financing is going to come from tax dollars. Why distribute tax money so that a party you disagree with can spread their propaganda? Why not build a school or something? There's always an opportunity cost.

The public has little disposable money, in general. It is the businesses and institutions that have money to burn by spending it on politicians. Thus, it is businesses and institution to whom the parties and politicians listen.

Dude, the public has **** tons of disposable money. How else does Apple sell iPods and crap? Every year the public spends way more on junk food than political contributions. Do you think it's only fat cats in big corporations who eat Snickers? If people care, they make contributions to worthy political causes. If people don't care, then they don't. I personally spend about $100 a year on political contributions. I'm not rich, but I can easily afford it. Assume that one third of Americans care enough and have enough disposable income to spend $100. That's 10 billion dollars from average folks. Nothing to sneeze at.

[Kuciwalker]

For all the people who think they know something about voting systems (in particular which one is 'best').

[Traianvs]

Maybe.

I still feel I have a better choice in the system here in Belgium than I would have in the US