SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Australia has announced national gun amnesty, allowing people to hand in illegal or unregistered firearms to authorities. The move is aimed at curbing growing numbers of illegal weapons and comes amid an increased terrorist threat.
[...] The program starts on July 1 and within three months – until September 30 – anyone who possesses an unwanted or unregistered firearm, or a firearm-related item such as ammunition, can legally dispose of or register their firearm at "approved drop-off points in each State and Territory", without fear of being prosecuted, Justice Minister said.
Outside the amnesty period, however, those who are caught with illegal guns could face a fine of up to AU$280,000 (US$212,000), up to 14 years in prison and a criminal record.
“My expectation is it will probably not be the case that we will have hardened criminals who have made a big effort to get a hold on illegal guns would necessarily hand them in. The purpose is to reduce the number of unregistered and illicit firearms in the community,” Keenan said, as cited by AAP.
[...] Earlier this month, the authorities announced plans to build its first prison solely for militants with extreme views to prevent the radicalization of other inmates.
Source: RT
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 19 2017, @03:30PM (2 children)
There's a difference between a (direct) democracy and a representative democracy. In direct democracies, the people vote directly for things. In representative democracies the people mostly vote for representatives who decide things. The Founders of the U.S. thought direct democracy was a VERY bad idea, based on historical precedent. So, they separated the people from directly voting on a number of things -- they could directly elect representatives to Congress, but senators would be elected by state representatives acting on behalf of the people. These are still democracies, since the people still have a voice in their governance (unlike, say, in an aristocracy or traditional monarchy, where the ultimate decision was left in the hands of officials who were not chosen directly or even indirectly by the people.)
The Electoral College is similar measure, originally intended to be a group of folks who may know more about regional or national candidates than the average voter, back in the days before parties, political campaigns, etc. were an issue and most of the country was isolated and rural. So, the people delegated their presidential vote to representatives, just as they delegate their votes on legislation to Congress, etc.
The Electoral College stopped functioning as intended after a few early elections, and it's basically been a complete fiction of sorts since around 1828 when most states adopted policies binding electors to parties based on majority votes in each state. What's truly ridiculous is that most states now even omit the names of electors on the ballots, when that's what you're actually voting for. No one was actually voting for Trump or Clinton last election -- they were actually voting for a slate of electors to represent them. That's a fundamental misrepresentation of the process.
Anyhow, I agree with you that the Electoral College is completely dysfunctional and should be abolished, as well as your concerns about the problems with the two-party system. But democracies historically have always degraded... which is why the Founders actually tried experiments like the Electoral College. That WAS one of the safeguards built-in to try to prevent the democracy from "subverting" itself.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 19 2017, @03:34PM
Oh, and I should also point out there are MANY parliamentary democracies around the word where a "prime minister" or similar leader is chosen by a legislature, again -- people elect representatives who ultimately choose the leader. The Founders of the U.S. considered options to have Congress elect the President, which would have basically moved the U.S. in that direction too. But the Founders were concerned with corruption and wanted independent folks to select the president, rather than "political insiders" like Congressmen. Ultimately that experiment failed (and failed quickly), but that was the intent... which makes sense in theory, though it never really worked in practice.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday June 19 2017, @10:45PM
> representative democracy
oxymoron detected.
Account abandoned.