How could a 1 party system be good?

[freakiness]

With posters taking on the views of their favourite shock jock or blogger and salivating over the prospect of Labor being annihilated, for ever, why bother with future elections?

If there is only one party how is it possible to be a democracy?

What would be the use of future elections?

It all seems quite strange to me that people could be so gleeful about such a scenario.

Does anyone remember the bottom of the harbour schemes?

Rupe's tax refund almost seems reminiscent of those practices. Why do we adore him so much?  Why is it unacceptable to question his motives and morals?

Why are we longing for a return to those sorts of practices?  We would we long for a return to the days of no environmental controls and conditions?

Every day we're spammed with over emotional, vitriolic material on the potential wipe out of Labor and the Greens, by those rejoicing in the potential single party system.  

What benefit could there be, apart from saving money on elections, if there is only one political party in the country?

[amber-eyed-girl]

I thought about the saving money aspect too...until I remembered that in one-party, one candidate states they still hold elections, like in North Korea, where their leader was just photographed voting. He had no opposition candidate, but there was still the requirement to vote.

[boris1gary]

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

I thought about the saving money aspect too...until I remembered that in one-party, one candidate states they still hold elections, like in North Korea, where their leader was just photographed voting. He had no opposition candidate, but there was still the requirement to vote.

---

amber, surely as someone who has been there? you are aware that there is in fact more than one party in the DPRK.

[amber-eyed-girl]

There is, I mentioned that even with no opposition candidate there was voting, in that area.

rather than being elected unopposed and saving the money and need for voting. There will have been more than one candidate in other areas, yes 🙂

just reread what I said, and have tried to clarify it 🙂 hope that is better

[lakeland27]

we could all end up despising the same person/persons  

[amber-eyed-girl]

But that would mean a lot less to talk about on Community Spirit

[**meep**]

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

I thought about the saving money aspect too...until I remembered that in one-party, one candidate states they still hold elections, like in North Korea, where their leader was just photographed voting. He had no opposition candidate, but there was still the requirement to vote.

---

Yep.  I'm familiar with "show elections"

The North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has been unanimously re-elected to the country’s parliament after every single eligible person in his constituency turned out to vote – with only his name on the ballot paper.

Rather than being a democratic choice between candidates, elections in North Korea superficially provide the people with the chance to approve the politicians pre-selected by the leading party. Each ballot has a single named listed with the option to pick “yes” or “no”.

In practical terms, however, they are a powerful tool for the government to check up on the movements and potential dissidence of the population.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/kim-jongun-wins-100-of-the-vote-in-north-korean-electio...

[freakiness]

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

I thought about the saving money aspect too...until I remembered that in one-party, one candidate states they still hold elections, like in North Korea, where their leader was just photographed voting. He had no opposition candidate, but there was still the requirement to vote.

---

:D:D

So we would get to waste the money to feed an ego.

[boris1gary]

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

I thought about the saving money aspect too...until I remembered that in one-party, one candidate states they still hold elections, like in North Korea, where their leader was just photographed voting. He had no opposition candidate, but there was still the requirement to vote.

---

apologies amber, I just saw the title of the thread and then the DPRK mentioned.

[boris1gary]

---

@freakiness wrote:

With posters taking on the views of their favourite shock jock or blogger and salivating over the prospect of Labor being annihilated, for ever, why bother with future elections?

If there is only one party how is it possible to be a democracy?

What would be the use of future elections?

It all seems quite strange to me that people could be so gleeful about such a scenario.

Does anyone remember the bottom of the harbour schemes?

Rupe's tax refund almost seems reminiscent of those practices. Why do we adore him so much?  Why is it unacceptable to question his motives and morals?

Why are we longing for a return to those sorts of practices?  We would we long for a return to the days of no environmental controls and conditions?

Every day we're spammed with over emotional, vitriolic material on the potential wipe out of Labor and the Greens, by those rejoicing in the potential single party system.  

What benefit could there be, apart from saving money on elections, if there is only one political party in the country?

---

regardless of the "wisdom" on here about the demise of the ALP blablabla, I don't think that it will actually happen and they really can't move much further to the right (the ALP). We could see the formation and rise of some fascist parties, as in parts of Europe. Those kind of extreme rightwing groups do often flourish when working people have been beaten down by conservative govts and unemployment is high and welfare is cut.  Although that kind of thing hasn't been that popular in Australia - there was the lovely Ms Hanson who certainly came close.