Re: CHAT: browsers

Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> The thing is that the position of the different countries as for French is not
> egalitarian like you have with English-speaking countries. France stays the
> example to follow. Britain doesn't have the same status at all.
No, I guess not.

>>[1]: Why can't we have an unambiguous, well-known word for xor?
>
> either... or...
True. But I said word, not phrase ;)

>>Is a Mayor a position of power in Holland?
>
> As much as a referee in a football (note for American readers: I'm referring to
> *real* football, the one where you play with your feet only on the ball, never
> your hands ;)))
I point out that 'football' in Australia can refer to, variously, Aussie
Rules, rugby or soccer. (No confusion occurs, because Rugby's only footy
in Qld/Northern NSW, and soccer's only footy when people know you're
talking about soccer.)

> ): no power of political decision by himself, only the power to
> make sure that the municipal council follows the rules. And he is the PR of a
> town. In Holland people don't get political power. Only groups do. That's the
> essence of the Polder model, that and the idea of constant negociation.
Sounds incredibly sensible.

> > I'm none too keen on
>>positions of power being unelected.
>
> Me neither. But come to think of it, I'm not keen on positions of power being
> elected either. I'm not keen on positions of power for one single person at
> all. I'm not keen on concentration of power in the hands of a single person.
Yes, I'd have to agree with you. Which is why if I ever became Prime
Minister, I wouldn't; I'd attempt to defy tradition and spread the power
around some more.

>>Hmm... well... A Prime Minister can appoint people, regardless of
>>whether he's elected in or not.
>
> ? Of course, but what the Prime Minister does is not an election.
No, I meant whether the Prime Minister himself is elected in (and so on).

> It seems that you actually agree with me on the difference between being
> appointed and elected.
Indeed we do.

> > Would you consider a situation where
>>the Government appointed the Head of State to be a Republic?
>
> Not really. To me, "Republic" really means that the Head of State must be
> elected, directly by the people or not.
See, I would've called it a Republic, because the Government is only the
Government by virtue of the public's votes, so theoretically, it *is*
indirectly elected by the people, even though it's appointed by the
Government.

> I guess we have a true lexical gap here ;))) .
Only if you refuse to fill it with 'Republic'.

> Mind you, if the Head of State is powerless, it may not be a bad idea to have
> him/her appointed rather than elected. A powerless figurehead wouldn't attract
> many people to vote anyway (powerful ones attract people to vote difficultly
> already!).
You mean 'powerful ones have difficulty attracting people to vote as it
is'. And no, they don't. Australia has >95% voter turn out. If you can't
prove you have a reasonable reason for not voting (e.g. being
hospitalised, being a resident of another country), you get a fine for
AUD 50 for the privilege of not voting. And we don't have a public
holiday like the Americans do for our elections, they just happen on a
Saturday. Which probably annoys the Jews somewhat, but they can always
send in postal votes. (Apparently the reason for compulsory voting is
that it's the logical conclusion of compulsory enrolment (apparently),
which came around because originally, you got on the electoral role when
Police came round to your door to enrol you before every election, but
this became too difficult to maintain, so it just became compulsory.)

On another note, we should probably drop this off-topic thread. I can't
even see the subject of the posts in the threaded view ;)

Tristan.

Reply