|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thunderbird
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| they voted for a list shes on then shes elected |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thunderbird wrote: |
| they voted for a list shes on then shes elected |
No she's not. They voted for a party. the party made a list, which no one chose and no one cast a single individual vote in her name. No one on the proportional list was "elected"
The party got X amount of seats and then appointed several people to those seats.
The people running in the individual districts were elected.
They actually ran a campaign against someone and defeated them.
Voting for the party doesn't mean anyone actually supported any of the individual candidates. They just may have agreed with party philosophy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderbird
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| thunderbird wrote: |
| they voted for a list shes on then shes elected |
No she's not. They voted for a party. the party made a list, which no one chose and no one cast a single individual vote in her name. No one on the proportional list was "elected"
The party got X amount of seats and then appointed several people to those seats.
The people running in the individual districts were elected.
They actually ran a campaign against someone and defeated them.
Voting for the party doesn't mean anyone actually supported any of the individual candidates. They just may have agreed with party philosophy. |
nope she beat #18 n the other party thats something |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nismo
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NohopeSeriously wrote: |
| Plus. I don't think she could represent the generic NETs and temporary foreign male workers in Korea. She always has been interested in issues related to South East Asian women (with rural traditionalist Korean husbands). |
As far as I know, you can't apply a law to a specific ethnicity in South Korea. That would be discrimination. You can, however, apply laws and benefits to specific residency types (citizen, F-X, E-X, D-X, etc.), so if ever something was pushed through for South East Asian women, it would need to be applied to the visa type they tend to possess (probably F-6-1 [formerly F-2-1] and F-5), and those of us who also happen to have the visa would gain the same benefits.
Case in point, I went to one of the local welfare offices for free vaccinations for my second child and walked away with a free box of vitamins for myself. I asked my wife why and she said it was meant for 'newly arrived, malnurished South East Asian wives'. As a healthy Western male, I didn't really need the vitamins, but I was entitled to them nonetheless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PRagic
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nursing school, medical school...what's the difference anyway, right?
Comparatively benign slip considering there were sexual offenders, outright plagarists, and a bevvy of financial grey area wonders also thrown into the fray. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| litebear wrote: |
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/356831/filipino-jasmine-lee-makes-history-wins-south-korea-election
She got elected  |
No, she was appointed by the party. She didn't run any campaign and defeat an opponent and receive a mandate from the people to serve them. |
Ah the beauty that is proportional representation. While I have no comment on other countries, let's hope Canada never adopts such a policy. People being put on a list by party operatives is not superior to the idea of people winning nominations for the right to represent their parties in an election. But, some diversity in Korea is probably a good thing. No doubt she will have to fight and be seen as effective in order to have credibility and keep her job. |
True but being able to look out into a legislature and being able to see 4,5, or even 10 different parties is a lot better than looking out and seeing the same two you've seen since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. |
I can't speak to the US and it's natural divided system of government. But the Canadian and British parliamentary system is far superior to the Italian and Japanese system which relies on multiple parties and coalitions due to proportional representation. (Italy even more so.) It means decision making is slow. On the hand, our system allows for rapid change once the politcal will is there. Thatcher overhauled uncompetitive Britain in the 1980's. Canada's Liberal government pulled us away from a debt crisis in the 1990's similiar to what the US is facing today. If there was numerous parties or divided government, gridlock would have prevented these things. Gridlock forms from proportional representation.
In our experience, it's always the losers who whine for it (PR). Boo hoo, my party can't win seats on our own. We got 4 per cent of the votes and got 1 or no seats in Parliament. Boo hoo, wah, give us more seats in Parliament! We want the money. Gimme, gimme, gimme!! If I scream like a child loud enough for long enough, maybe I'll eventually get my own way. Wah!
PR means nothing ever changes and change is very slow in coming. The US system is very different in the sense that the government can sometimes be divided. But I think if the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress they'd be able to sit at the table more. I recall Bill Clinton and the Reublicans going at it with each other in the 1990's and they produced some good compromises. Take the current gridlock and put it on steriods, that's what PR gives you. In order to keep coalitions together, politicians rarely do anything controversial or necessary. One only need look at Italy as a prime example.
People are also chosen from lists and not directly elected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Los Angeloser
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Korea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Canada's Liberal government pulled us away from a debt crisis in the 1990's similiar to what the US is facing today. If there was numerous parties or divided government, gridlock would have prevented these things. Gridlock forms from proportional representation. |
And now harper is selling Canada out to the US just as fast as he can. Gridlock was the only thing saving Canada from harper. Proportional representation doesn't cause gridlock. A divided country does.
any time you have more than 2 parties you have a potential for gridlock as you might not always get a majority government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just happy that a foreigner got in. The racism and hatred is coming from the fringe elements on the internet. Within our lifetimes, that same hatred was the party line. A single Filipino naturalized citizen today means that things can and will be changing tomorrow. Slowly but surely.
Good for her, good for ALL migrants in Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wildbore
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Canada's Liberal government pulled us away from a debt crisis in the 1990's similiar to what the US is facing today. If there was numerous parties or divided government, gridlock would have prevented these things. Gridlock forms from proportional representation. |
And now harper is selling Canada out to the US just as fast as he can. Gridlock was the only thing saving Canada from harper. Proportional representation doesn't cause gridlock. A divided country does.
any time you have more than 2 parties you have a potential for gridlock as you might not always get a majority government. |
Thanks for hijacking the thread. Must I remind you, the Liberal party of Canada, which you glorify aimlessly in your above post, DOES NOT support proporational representation, Senate reform, or any kind of electoral reform. Even in their own party, they "just" adopted a one member, one vote system for picking their leader, unlike the other parties which had that system in place.
A Harper majority is the best thing to happen to Canada in several decades. I think people are tired of the corrupt Liberals jacking taxes through the roof, stealing money from Canadians in every way possible (gun registry, using EI premiums as a flush fund, the sponsorship scandel), and giving huge handouts to natives and Quebec with no strings attached. They were a COMPLETE JOKE, and we would be worse than Greece if the Liberals or NDP were anywhere near power when the SHTF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wildbore wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Canada's Liberal government pulled us away from a debt crisis in the 1990's similiar to what the US is facing today. If there was numerous parties or divided government, gridlock would have prevented these things. Gridlock forms from proportional representation. |
And now harper is selling Canada out to the US just as fast as he can. Gridlock was the only thing saving Canada from harper. Proportional representation doesn't cause gridlock. A divided country does.
any time you have more than 2 parties you have a potential for gridlock as you might not always get a majority government. |
Thanks for hijacking the thread. Must I remind you, the Liberal party of Canada, which you glorify aimlessly in your above post, DOES NOT support proporational representation, Senate reform, or any kind of electoral reform. Even in their own party, they "just" adopted a one member, one vote system for picking their leader, unlike the other parties which had that system in place.
A Harper majority is the best thing to happen to Canada in several decades. I think people are tired of the corrupt Liberals jacking taxes through the roof, stealing money from Canadians in every way possible (gun registry, using EI premiums as a flush fund, the sponsorship scandel), and giving huge handouts to natives and Quebec with no strings attached. They were a COMPLETE JOKE, and we would be worse than Greece if the Liberals or NDP were anywhere near power when the SHTF. |
1. I didn't hijack the thread. The governments of other countries were brought up by Weigookin74. He wrote the bit about the liberal party, not me. That's how quoting works.
2. my comment was mostly about proportional government and how gridlock has nothing to do with it
3. do a little research on harper and copyright reform before you run your mouth. Harper has been promising the US for years that he would turn Canada into little America and the minority government was the only thing stopping that. Now that he's got a majority he can't ram it through fast enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| Wildbore wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Canada's Liberal government pulled us away from a debt crisis in the 1990's similiar to what the US is facing today. If there was numerous parties or divided government, gridlock would have prevented these things. Gridlock forms from proportional representation. |
And now harper is selling Canada out to the US just as fast as he can. Gridlock was the only thing saving Canada from harper. Proportional representation doesn't cause gridlock. A divided country does.
any time you have more than 2 parties you have a potential for gridlock as you might not always get a majority government. |
Thanks for hijacking the thread. Must I remind you, the Liberal party of Canada, which you glorify aimlessly in your above post, DOES NOT support proporational representation, Senate reform, or any kind of electoral reform. Even in their own party, they "just" adopted a one member, one vote system for picking their leader, unlike the other parties which had that system in place.
A Harper majority is the best thing to happen to Canada in several decades. I think people are tired of the corrupt Liberals jacking taxes through the roof, stealing money from Canadians in every way possible (gun registry, using EI premiums as a flush fund, the sponsorship scandel), and giving huge handouts to natives and Quebec with no strings attached. They were a COMPLETE JOKE, and we would be worse than Greece if the Liberals or NDP were anywhere near power when the SHTF. |
1. I didn't hijack the thread. The governments of other countries were brought up by Weigookin74. He wrote the bit about the liberal party, not me. That's how quoting works.
2. my comment was mostly about proportional government and how gridlock has nothing to do with it
3. do a little research on harper and copyright reform before you run your mouth. Harper has been promising the US for years that he would turn Canada into little America and the minority government was the only thing stopping that. Now that he's got a majority he can't ram it through fast enough. |
Boys, boys, boys...simmer down. lol Actually, I applaud the Liberals tough choices in bringing down the debt and breaking with the socialism of the past. I voted for Harper in 2006 before leaving. I think he's managed well in spite of a really bad global economy. Also, thanks for bringing down the GST from 7% to 5%. As for copyright, I don't agree with that. We should be able to download and let the companies find other ways to make money. But would the Liberals really do any different if they were in power, in regards to that Also wish Harper would tackle the caps on internet usage I've heard heard about in Canada which is pure BS!!
Guess there are things I like about both and dislike about both when they were in power. A majority has allowed for stability when a government is determined and has the political will. We never could have successfully managed our debt crisis in the 90's with a minority or fractured Parliament. It took a majority government to bring in the spending cuts that balanced the budget and allowed for future tax cuts. We ran a budget surplus for 12 years until the 2009 recession. This is unlike just about every other western nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Otus
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone know who was responsible for bringing the mixed member proportional representation system into the Korean political system? Was it Roh's predecessor? I remember when Roh was almost impeached when first coming into govt. because he tried to manipulate the MMP system to stack the congress with his party.
When I asked some Koreans about it at that time they seemed unaware of the MMP system they had adopted, or at least the implications of it and I was told that the Korean political system was almost the same as the US ... nope - huge difference when a party is appointing people into govt positions based on a party vote ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
