Federal elections end in the United States, we take a look at what actually happened. Est. 1828
7 May 2016 ÂŁ4
Well, that’s over. What happened?
Pr Ed em iti ier on
Produced and published in London, Canberra and Washington. Printed around the world for various outlets.
We take a look at the results of the US Federal Election
The Spectator Team Desmond (/u/Danforthe)
Collin (/u/Spindleton)
Ben (/u/Mepzie)
Alex (/u/UrbanRedneck007)
Editor
Assistant Editor
U.K. Editor
Australian Editor
Contents Well that’s over. What happened? The Spectator takes a look at the results of the U.S. Federal Elections
Meanwhile in Britain...
An anonymous comments their thoughts on the current UK Government
Australia: A political desert.
Our Australian team comments on the main issue for the country.
All aboard?
Danforthe examines the importance of principles in Conservative politics.
A word on ‘democracy’ In a highlight of this edition Yukub discusses democracy
The Main Event
Well, that’s over. What happened? By Spindleton
Last night, the inter-party struggles of the term were dealt straight out onto the table - the American nation decided once and for all - who was to govern the nation for the foreseeable future. Against all odds, the incumbent president was selected to continue his time in the White House - the first re-election of a President in Model United States history. Although initial reporting had favored a Democratic/Libertarian victory, the incumbent, /u/TurkandJD, was able to win an astonishing victory. In the Western State - a region which ultimately became the battleground between the Democratic and Republican tickets - the Republican president won the state’s eleven electoral votes by a single vote. Although recounting
is underway, the future seems good for the Republicans with regards to the Executive. On the other hand, the Democrats and Libertarians’ high hopes were quashed with marginal losses to the republicans statewide, and an unreliable new voter base: the Libertarians. Although the Libertarians also entered the election hoping to win big in the name of conservatism, the leadership decided to sneakily enter an electoral pact with the Democrats. This split the party, with some wanting to continue their previous affiliation with the Republicans, and the rest opting to follow their leaders and support the Democrat.
NLP
The Main Event What is really interesting is what happens next, with a strategic flop on behalf of the Democratic and Libertarian leadership it will be interesting to see if any challenges arise in either of the parties… it is the view of the Spectator that poor strategy lost this election and we would be surprised if heavy criticism doesn’t fall somewhere. Of course we are overjoyed, as a Conservative publication, that the President has been returned to continue his so far successful presidency. I would like to emphasise how unlikely this result was… all the cards were on the table in this election and it really did look like the Dems and the Libs were going to pull it out of the hat.
‘Hmm… it’s OK. Do you have one in uranium?’
What does this mean for Model World Politics? We have a centre-right President re-elected on an astounding margin, essentially this means a bad time for the Democrats and the Libertarians, they will have to go back to party HQ, sit down and find out what the hell happened on the ground. What went wrong? We, of course, can’t comment on what they will do but hopefully they will make another silly error keeping the right in power next election. In this closing paragraph we want to congratulate the president and re-iterate how excited we are to cover his next term...
Story by Spindleton and the U.S. Spectator Team
NLP
Comment
Meanwhile in Britain... By an anonymous contributor. Meanwhile in Britain the government tries to pretend it is still in adequate condition to well… govern.
Until then however we are stuck with a government which only really has one point; survival.
It is no secret that this government has been a shambles and even on the right we should admit this. If we make a mistake we should put it on the record so nobody else follows the same damned trail and yet, this doesn’t seem to be happening.
I simply cannot wait to see how this whole thing turns out.
The government is determined to carry on and is even announcing a public consultation on its education policy. I mean let’s be realistic, the government’s policies are irrelevant; soon they’ll be out, the right will be able to rebuild and regroup and perhaps we’ll have something that functions and actually releases stuff to be scrutinised.
I guess we’ll see what happens at the election, I know I really shouldn’t think this. It’s a guilty feeling… but I hope the right really gets a kicking and maybe then we will take the time we need to reflect on what we have done this term. It’s terrible, but it’s the only way I see it happening. Perhaps if I’m allowed I’ll comment in next month’s edition of the Spectator.
NLP
Australia
Australia: A political desert. By the Spectator (Australia)
Australia, a modern liberal society fuelled by its thriving democracy and bustling parliament. Oh, sorry; I think I’m describing the ideal. Everything is in place, the parties, a speakership team and representatives and yet it is plagued by inactivity. Some people, even after standing, fail to take their seats. A recent example can be found in /u/Piggbam, who was selected to replace an inactive NLP MP, and is yet to take his seat well over a week since his selection and appointment. Which is pretty ironic. I would suggest the reason for this
haunting inactivity is that Australia is left behind in model politics, it’s the sick dog. Moping around and bringing nothing new to the table. The model world already has many other already established governments (like MHoC and Model US Gov), so to many there’s no point in getting involved in building from the ground a smaller simulation when there’s much more fun to be had at the already established and populated ones. Perhaps this is cynicism… nevertheless we hope that some people find interest in Australia and build it to a state of glory.
NLP
Comment
All aboard? By Danforthe
With this article I would like to address a dangerous and smug attitude which can be easily found in right-wing and Conservative politics today and that is essentially the idea that compromising on any of our principles is an act of treachery making you worthy of contempt. This is nothing but snobbish elitism hidden behind the facade of ‘principle’.
At first glance holding your principles so dear may appear an admirable trait… that is until you see the massively damaging effect it has on any movement it even brushes against… instead of settling for a few policies and making way for steady progress this kind of politics overwhelms the electorate with a barrage of potent principle (it creates an unclear message essentially).
We on the right have to accept what the left has so long ago; compromise is necessary. Unfettered principle does not win elections… in fact it loses them (badly). In the United Kingdom we have already seen the electoral success compromise of principle can bring in the form of ‘New’ Labour’s 1997 General Election result. Perhaps if the right can do the same we can gain ground and actually have a mandate for getting some stuff done.
Something I have found with people who refuse to compromise is that they often use the most condescending and snobbish arguments in order to justify their quaint strange position. They may do one of the following things: remind you of past glories, insult the electorate for not sharing their glorious worldview, tell you they’re not in the slightest interested in winning elections or a number of other things.
NLP
The reason I describe these points as ‘snobbish’ is that they work on the assumption that you are clever and everyone else is either too short-sighted or downright stupid to see things your way. It’s ironic as often these people see themselves as the voice of reason but rather they are entirely the opposite, they are agitators and by not compromising they take the most irrational action of all, make way to consolidate the left’s grip on power. I suppose for some this assessment will be ignored and I guess some people enjoy shouting from the sidelines, some might just enjoy being a member of the elite ‘principled’ club. But there’s no doubt their refusal to adapt is holding us back..
‘But surely the cost of my yacht is allowable? I need it to access my offshore accounts.’
Desmond (/u/Danforthe), Editor of the Spectator.
In other news… The UK Government has announced a public consultation by the Department of Education concerning the future of Ofsted. International tensions rise between the Republic of Ireland and the Netherlands after the Dutch expressed distaste towards Ireland’s admission to the United Nations. In Britain a member of Parliament has labeled the British police ‘dangerous’, stating they should be abolished.
NLP
Comment
A word on ‘democracy’ By Yukub
For some reason or another many of us associate democracy with an unquestioned respect for and attachment to human rights. At a first glance it seems that the two are indeed linked together. For example, when we take a look at the (leading) western nations and their espoused variant of democracy, liberal democracy, we see that over time their democracies have assimilated and incorporated the principles of the Rechtsstaat. It is therefore very easy to take the situation in Europe (and most of the ‘West’) and apply it to the rest of the world’s democracies. Upon a closer look however we see that many democracies in other parts of the world - outside of the west - have little time or place for many principles that we consider indispensable to our idea of a ‘true’ democracy. Often, the will of the people is contrary to what we consider to be ‘just’ or ‘democratic’. That is, we have actively confused the meaning of democracy. A more accurate description of our western democracies
would perhaps be the ‘’government as exercised by the consent of the majority, tempered by the rule of law and international conventions on human rights’’. After all, at times the will of the people is swept up in times of (great) crisis, of heightened fear and discontent. It becomes agitated, unpredictable and is, sometimes, directly directed against the status quo of liberal democracy and the ‘status quo’. Then what is a ‘true’ democracy? Is it the worst-case scenario of many: The ‘’tyranny of the majority’’ or even ‘’mob rule’’? I certainly can’t truthfully say that the representative democracy of many Western nations is close to what I would call ‘true’ democracy. In these systems, millions of people get the choice to mark a red box with a red pencil every few years or so, and in doing so they elect a list of people who then claim to have a ‘popular mandate’ to carry out whatever policy they so desire. What *does* constitute a ‘real’ or ‘true’ democracy is trickier to answer. I would say that is
NLP
Comment closer to the Swiss model, largely based on direct democracy through referenda and public initiatives. People can get together to declare their support for a specific issue or proposal, and upon meeting a set number of support a referendum will need to be held on the issue. In some cases the outcome of these referenda is contrary to the will of the government and the many supranational and international organisations that have an interest in the issue at hand. Taking Switzerland as an example, ‘controversial’ referenda were held on banning the construction of minarets and another one on imposing immigration quotas. In both cases the government parties, or the majority of government parties, alongside a number of international organisations, were against the approval of the suggested initiatives. In both cases the referenda were duly accepted by the majority of Swiss voters. When they were passed the government took no delay in working to introduce the required changes. I would say that such popular initiatives and the ‘rule by referenda’ is a solid step, if not definitive step, towards establishing ‘true’ democracies. Fundamental to this is that these referenda are binding, so that the government that ostensibly has a ‘mandate’ is unable to hamper the wishes - and rule - of the majority. As such, the majority - no matter how slim and small may push legislation onto the ‘other’ side, the minority, that is deemed wholly unacceptable by this minority. This would certainly imply that the ‘’tyranny of the majority’’ is very real. But a fundamental part of our liberal democracies is the respect of the wishes of the dissenting minority. Without sufficient restraint and ability to compromise, one cannot hope to sustain the system of mutual respect and the social cohesion which our nations are build on and indeed rely on. It may be a ‘good’, a virtue to ‘restrain’ the ‘true’ democracy to allow for the feelings and opinions of these minorities to remain (mostly) unscathed. Casting restraint aside is a good recipe or civil strife and the breakdown of our legislative system and the governance of the nation. Yet, we must also seek to avoid placing a ‘taboo’ on discussing some (radical) ideas of either the majority of the minority for the sake of each other’s purported wellbeing. If some matters, sometimes issues that a great many people deem a ‘problem’ or at least something worth discussing, are considered inappropriate for public debate, then our democratic
system has already failed. Whether it be immigration or the case for decriminalising (or legalising) necrophilia, if we wish to live in a ‘democratic’ society and nation, the people that hold views regarding these subjects must be able to express themselves freely. To avoid a ‘political elite’ all views and ideological convictions must be allowed to be brought into the public eye, whether that be through discussion, through the press or through the legislative process. This goes hand in hand with the radicals in political discourse; the far-left and the far-right. Both (usually) hold opinions and promote policies that are deemed unacceptable by a great many people. I would say that, in a truly democratic fashion, both must be fully discussed and explored instead of ignored or cast aside as ‘extremist’. After all, in a democracy the people or their chosen representatives are able to judge the merits of legislation. If the ideas are truly as ‘extremist’ and ‘unacceptable’ as is claimed then the people or their representatives should judge and decide accordingly. Recently one of the Principal Speakers of the Green party, /u/electric-blue, suggested that the far-right, embodied in the Nationalist Party, might as well give up with introducing legislation and trying to pass said legislation through the House of Commons: ‘’Very happy to see both of these horrendous bills fail. See what happens when the far right tries to pass bills?’’ were his words upon receiving the information that two pieces of legislation, submitted by the Nationalist Party, had been rejected by the House. I would say that this comment is misjudged. While it may be true that the House - consisting of the elected representatives of the people - is hostile to the principles and measures detailed in the bill this shouldn’t mean that the far-right should remove itself from submitting these proposals. After all, these people were, just like /u/electric-blue and his ideological comrades, elected on their respective manifesto’s, and are following through with the wishes of a portion of the electorate in submitting this legislation. To avoid that their voices be muted, it is ‘good’ that the far-right is actively engaged in submitting legislation that some of us deem ridiculous or dangerous. As raised by myself in response to /u/electric-blue, ‘’If - hypothetically speaking - B228, the ''Sexual Liberation Bill'', infamous for the decriminalisation of necrophilia, were to be rejected, would you say the same for the far-left?’’. Both sides of the spectrum have presented radical legislation that many deem unacceptable and dangerous. Both should be heard equally, to be judged on by the people (or
NLP
Comment indeed their representative members of parliament). After this long rant, I feel we must raise a few questions. Firstly, is direct democracy and the accompanying danger of ‘’tyranny of the majority’’ desirable? Secondly, is truly and unlimited freedom of the speech and the bringing about of radical and ‘extreme’ ideas into public discourse desirable? To what extent do we let democracy have its way, and to what extent do we prefer some fundamental principles to the shifts, squirms and unpredictabilty of the masses? This article is opinion-based and was contributed by /u/Yukub for the Spectator
A word from the Editor I am proud to launch the Spectator Magazine in the model world and I am also thrilled to have received so many great contributions for our first edition, I only hope to keep up this quality as we soldier forth to our second edition coming next month. A real gem has been produced by our very own Yukub raising some very interesting points and encouraging one of the core values of this publication; debate and conversation. I would like to thank you all for reading! Best wishes, Desmond (/u/Danforthe), Editor of the Spectator.
NLP
Published on the evening of the 7th of May, Model Spectator Ltd. Reddit.com/r/ModelSpectator