Denver Prepares For The Main Event

Check out the best reporting on the Democratic National Convention from Campaigns and Elections Blog live from Denver

CNN DNC Coverage

Article taken from Irish Times be Reuters

Democrats prepared a grand celebration today for Barack Obama, who will accept a historic presidential nomination with a speech that spells out his vision for change in America.

Mr Obama, the first black presidential nominee of a major US party, will deliver the address in Denver's open-air football stadium before 75,000 supporters on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech - a landmark in the US civil rights movement.

The televised speech by Mr Obama, who was formally nominated yesterday, will give the first-term Illinois senator his biggest national audience until he meets Republican rival John McCain in late September in the first of three face-to-face debates before the November 4th election.

In an unannounced appearance in the hall at the end of yesterday's national convention program, Mr Obama said he shifted the event to the football stadium as a tribute to the grass-roots energy of his supporters.

"We want to open up the convention to make sure that everybody who wants to come can join in the party," said Mr Obama (47) who appeared on stage after the acceptance speech of his newly minted running mate, Delaware Senator Joe Biden.

National conventions are often the first time voters start to pay attention to a presidential race. Opinion polls show many voters are still unfamiliar with Mr Obama and concerned about his readiness for the job.

Republicans, who hold their own convention in St Paul, Minnesota next week to nominate the veteran 71-year-old Mr McCain, hammered on their theme that Mr Obama is unprepared and his soaring speeches mask a lack of substance.

"The question for Obama is 'What have you done and what have you run?'," Minnesota Govenor Tim Pawlenty, named as a possible running mate for Mr McCain, said on ABC's Good Morning America . "He has good oratory but when you shut off the teleprompter there's not much there," he said.

Speakers at the Democratic convention have addressed those concerns, led by rousing testimonials for Mr Obama from former rival Hillary Clinton, her husband former President Bill Clinton and Mr Biden.

"Barack Obama is ready to lead America and to restore American leadership in the world," Bill Clinton told flag-waving Democrats.

Mr Obama is running even with McCain in opinion polls. The back to back-to-back nominating conventions will give voters a chance to compare and contrast.

Mr Obama's senior strategist, David Axelrod, told reporters the speech would focus on Mr Obama's vision for the country's future.

"He's going to lay out a case for change. He's going to set the stakes of this election, the risks of continuing down the road we're on which is plainly what Senator McCain is offering," Mr Axelrod said.

Democrats tie Mr McCain's name to that of the unpopular President George W. Bush, whose eight years in power are associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and an economic malaise.

Some Democrats have said Mr Obama needs to be more specific about his priorities as president, and draw a sharp contrast with Mr McCain. Mr Axelrod said both elements would be included.

Republicans, seeking to draw attention away from the Democrats on their big day, tried to build up anticipation over Mr McCain's vice-presidential pick. A party official had said yesterday Mr McCain had made his choice, but the senator denied in an interview with KDKA NewsRadio in Pittsburgh today he had yet made a decision.

He did say, however, that two men considered potential running mates would join him at a rally in Ohio on Friday, his 72nd birthday, when the announcement is expected. They were former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.

If elected Mr McCain would be the oldest first-term president to take office.

Mr Obama was formally nominated on Wednesday in an emotional show of unity after Hillary Clinton, his vanquished rival, appeared on the convention floor to ask Democrats to suspend their roll call of the states and make Mr Obama the nominee by acclamation.

Former Vice President Al Gore will speak to the convention before Obama today. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Hispanic, will also make an appearance. Hispanics are a fast growing segment of the U.S. electorate and a potentially vital voting bloc.

The last presidential candidate to accept the nomination in an open-air football stadium was John Kennedy, who spoke to the Democratic convention at the Los Angeles Coliseum before 80,000 supporters in 1960.

Twitter icon

Musharraf Announces Resignation In TV Address

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has announced his resignation during a live TV address to the Pakistani nation.

The former army chief and firm US ally has seen his popularity fall over the past 18 months and has been isolated since his allies lost a February election.

Read on here

Watch televised address here

Georgia: Russian Cluster Bombs Kill Civilians

Stop Using Weapon Banned by 107 Nations

(Tbilisi, August 15, 2008) – Human Rights Watch researchers have uncovered evidence that Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated areas in Georgia, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch called upon Russia to immediately stop using cluster bombs, weapons so dangerous to civilians that more than 100 nations have agreed to ban their use.

'Cluster bombs are indiscriminate killers that most nations have agreed to outlaw. Russia’s use of this weapon is not only deadly to civilians, but also an insult to international efforts to avoid a global humanitarian disaster of the kind caused by landmines' says Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch.

Read on here

Russia Wants More Security For Georgian Troop Pullout; How Georgia Opened The Door To Nostalgia

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed a French-brokered six point peace agreement to end it's conflict with Georgia over the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

"The president informed participants of the security council meeting that he had just now signed the six-point plan," said the Kremlin's chief spokeswoman, Natalia Timakova.

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia will pull out troops from the conflict zone in Georgia once additional security arrangements are put in place.

The ceasefire agreement signed by Russia and Georgia states that Moscow's troops will continue to implement additional security measures on a temporary basis pending the arrival of an international peacekeeping mechanism.

"The (Russian) president issued an order to the relevant authorities to start the adoption of extra security measures envisaged in the six-point plan," Mr Lavrov told reporters.

"As these security measures are implemented, the withdrawal of forces sent to carry out this reinforcement operation will be carried out."

Mr Medvedev and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili have now both signed the French-brokered peace deal, but Mr Lavrov said the document signed by the Georgian leader was missing a key introductory part.

"The document signed by the Georgian president differs from the one which was agreed," he said. "It totally omits the introductory part saying that these principles are supported by Russia and France and calling on all sides to sign them."

He said Russia was discussing the matter with Georgia and that it would be settled through diplomatic channels.

Mr Lavrov said Russia had started consultations at the United Nations on international efforts to end the conflict.

"Additional numbers of monitors should observe the security zone. We will carry

out our obligations under the deal, depending on how other parties carry them out," he said.

Russia received a copy of the ceasefire document signed by Georgia this morning, according to the Interfax news agency.

The Ministry said the document, sent by the United States, was identical to the one signed already in Moscow by leaders of the separatist regions at the heart of the conflict, Interfax reported.

Russia has denied continuing military operations in the country. Georgia's Interior Ministry claimed this morning that Russian troops had blown up a railway bridge about 45 km from the Georgian capital Tbilisi.

Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said troops had destroyed the bridge in the Kaspi region west of Tbilisi, "paralysing the Georgian railway network".

However, Russia's General Staff denied the accusation.

"We are now in peacetime. Why should we be blowing up bridges when our job is to restore ?" Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the General Staff, told a daily official military briefing.

"This therefore can only be yet another completely unverified statement. We are not conducting bombardments. I can say with full responsibility that this cannot be the case."

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will privately meet US, Russian and Georgian ambassadors today to discuss the cease-fire accord agreed yesterday.

Mr Ban has been unable to reach President Medvedev after earlier speaking with his Georgian counterpart, according to a report by AFP, citing Farhan Haq, a UN spokesman.

The UN estimates the number of people displaced by the conflict is approaching 115,000, according to a statement on its Web site yesterday.

Two days ago, the UN children's fund, Unicef, put the number of refugees at about 100,000. The latest figures show that 30,000 people uprooted from South Ossetia remain in Russia, while as many as 15,000 fled south into undisputed Georgian territory, the UN said, citing data provided by Russian and Georgian officials.

About 68,000 refugees are displaced in the rest of Georgia, according to the statement. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres will visit Georgia and Russia next week to discuss the ongoing operations.

Human Rights Watch said in an Aug. 14 report that both sides made ``indiscriminate attacks'' on civilians.

A doctor at the main hospital in South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, told Human Rights Watch that the clinic handled 44 corpses and 273 wounded between Aug. 6 and Aug. 12, including civilian and military casualties, the New York-based group said.

"Human Rights Watch cannot definitely attribute specific battle damage to a particular belligerent, but witness accounts and the timing of the damage would point to Georgian fire accounting for much of the damage described'' in Tskhinvali, the report said.

Russian and South Ossetian officials earlier said as many as 2,000 civilians died in the fighting. Human Rights Watch reported seeing houses that had "clearly just been torched" in South Ossetia's ethnic Georgian villages.

The group said in a separate report on Aug. 15 that its researchers uncovered evidence Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated areas of Georgia, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens.

No country has recognised South Ossetia or Abkhazia since they broke away from Georgia in wars after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia has had peacekeepers in both regions since then and expelled all Georgian forces from the territories in recent fighting.

"Unfortunately, after what happened, it's unlikely that the Abkhaz and South Ossetians can live in a single state with Georgia," Medvedev said.

"Or some absolutely titanic efforts must be made to resolve this conflict."

He met Aug. 14 in Moscow with South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity and Sergei Bagapsh, the leader of Abkhazia, and told them that Russia would support the regions' decisions about their future status.

From Irish Times by Bloomberg, Reuters

________________________________

But what has been the aim of Russia's involvement in Georgia? I am not sure it is just about Russia exerting 'power' in the region. In a sense it is but not purely for the sake of exerting that power. President Bush says the "territorial integrity of Georgia must be respected". Many might correctly say it is now a bit too late for that, after the carve-up of the former Yugoslavia by the Americans, ably assisted by elements within the EU. Kosovo, of course, being the latest in Western-backed declarations of independence.

It is Mr Bush, his predecessor and their disciples in Europe who have let the separatist genie out of the bottle. And once genies get out, they rarely, if ever, go back. Surely, the Russians have the right to protect the South Ossetians and assist them in their quest for self-determination. Of course, am I not being devilishly naive to suspect that situations mirror one another in terms of democratic self-determination. When it suits us, you say. How are the Spaniards doing in recognising Kosovo (difficult one that for them)?

The players in this game are all too similar. South Ossetia as Kosovo, it's separatist fighters as a KLA, Georgia as Serbia, and an energetic Russia acting as NATO. Of course, the similarities might not be perfect but the parallels to be drawn are striking.

President Bush stated that 'bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century. Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations, or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation'. In the same speech he explains how 'Georgia has sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to help others achieve the liberty that they struggled so hard to attain'. If you are somewhat confused you should be. Democratic nations are free to do what they want because they are democratically elected and thus serve in the interests of the majority of their population. But the will of the nation being attacked is ignored, provided that they are not a democracy, which means they have no right to be heard. Puzzled? I certainly am. Rhetoric and propaganda are starting to take root in a serious way and I'm feeling a little nostalgic for the Cold War. Times were simpler then and we always had an enemy to blame (or at least knew who the enemy was). The post-Cold War era has been far too confusing for my liking and often actions of supposed allies seemed questionable given the changed security paradigms. Global Jihad was hot for a while providing us with some common enemy but its form was far too intangible to grasp (not to mention being notoriously difficult to target with our own WMDs). With the slow emergence of China as a great power and the thunderous reawakening of Russia I can look forward to a time in which things once more become black and white.

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Re-introduction Of Third Level Fees

The political maelstrom that has precipitated in the wake of Education Minister Batt O'Keefe's suggestion that Third Level Fees are back on the cards is wholly laughable given his statement on the matter yesterday. Mr O’Keeffe said yesterday the introduction of third-level fees for better-off families was being considered but today said any new fees would target millionaires and those with “excellent salaries”.

What baffles me is that the very small minority that he refers to is hardly going to solve the chronic under-funding of Irish universities. He is yet to draw a limit at which people have to start paying for their fees but from the statements made so far this is to be set quite high. What would the point of having 3-5% of students pay their fees?!? Of course, the argument is that the limit can be decreased and that there will be pressure to do this as time goes on. But to be perfectly honest, the Irish third-level sector is in serious trouble and in need of proper funding, which cannot just come from government. Private investment must be secured. The CAO system also feels somewhat broken.

Personally, I feel radical changes need to be brought to the whole area of Irish Third Level education. Fees may not be such a bad thing but then Irish banks need to grow up in that culture and begin to offer good packages to students (which they don't have to start paying back immediately upon graduation). I will write of the CAO system tomorrow as all those Leaving Cert-ers will be getting their results in the morning. Good luck to them all!

To read more on this story go here

Is The Race Really As Close As We Think?

From Campaigns and Elections by Doug Daniels

With our voracious appetite for 24/7 cable news and online coverage of the presidential race, everybody seems obsessed with scrutinizing every shred of polling data out of the race for president. Daily tracking polls, national averages, and even polls of polls have become standard metrics by which pundits and politicians alike steer the political discourse.

And in a political climate that is universally viewed as terminally grim for Republicans, the fact that Sen. Barack Obama has been unable to pull farther ahead of GOP rival Sen. John McCain has many wondering why the presumptive Democratic nominee isn't doing better.

The latest Gallup tracking poll has Obama with a 3 point lead over McCain-46 percent to 43 percent. Rassmussen's latest tracking numbers have Obama ahead by 2 points. A recent CBS News poll gives Obama a 6 point lead.

But despite the media frenzy over the surprising tightness of the race, Obama's campaign has avoided, at least publicly, exhibiting any sense of panic. Maybe that's because Democrats claim to see plenty of promising data in the state-by-state polling.

"Remember, in the primary there was a lot of talk about how the white, non-college educated vote would not go to Obama in the general election, but those voters have come back to him," says McMahon. "Plus, he's still ahead in all the states John Kerry won in 2004, and ahead in three or four of the states Kerry lost, so the playing field still tilts to Obama."

On Sunday, former presidential advisor and George W. Bush political guru Karl Rove suggested Obama should be much farther ahead than he currently is in national polling. On CBS' Face the Nation, Rove said the Illinois' senator's slim lead suggests that far too many voters have doubts about his ability to lead the country.

But Obama backers counter with the numbers that they say really matter on Election Day-those measuring the race in key battleground states-which appear to offer Obama a somewhat brighter picture. The latest Rassmussen poll has Obama up by 4 percentage points in Michigan and seven points in Wisconsin.

Most polls out of Ohio have Obama with a slight edge in that state, and the latest Quinnipiac numbers out of Pennsylvania have Obama up by 7 points.

Of course, history suggests that both candidates should be cautious in reading too much into any of these numbers, since the national summer polls have traditionally been an unreliable predictor for what will happen on Election Day.

Even former vice president Walter Mondale actually led President Reagan by a handful of points in a Gallup poll in February of 1983, only to suffer a crushing defeat in November. Reagan won the most Electoral College votes of any candidate in history that fall.

And four years later, in July of 1988, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis lead George H.W. Bush by a similar margin, only to lose in a landslide in November.

And don't forget polls back in the summer of 1992 that showed Ross Perot defeating both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International, says summer polls aren't necessarily unreliable, simply snapshots of where the electorate stands before voters really engage in the campaign.

"You start to see public opinion solidifying more after the conventions or after the debates, and there are people who don't make up their mind until the last week of the campaign," Zogby says. "Most people are doing more important things right now than following every detail of a campaign, like keeping their job or putting food on the table."

Still, Zogby says he's not surprised by the closeness of the race, despite the damaged Republican brand. "Structurally the country is still competitive," he says. "If you subtract George Bush from the equation you still have two parties that are pretty close, and if any Republican can run away from Bush with some credibility, it's McCain. And so I think those factors, along with Obama's race and perhaps his inexperience, are keeping it close. But there are still enough undecided voters out there who may feel more comfortable with Obama the more they get to know him."

Political Cartoon Of The Day

For Edwards, An 'F' In Crisis Management

From Campaigns and Elections by Shane D'Aprile and Doug Daniels

Now that former North Carolina senator and two-time presidential hopeful John Edwards has admitted to an extramarital affair with a former campaign staffer in an exclusive interview with ABC's Nightline, one prominent political strategist, who specializes in crisis management, says Edwards handled the allegations in just about the worst way possible.

"The good news for the Democrats is that [Edwards] isn't the nominee right now," says Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic strategist who has done crisis management for numerous politicians including former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who admitted to a gay extramarital affair in 2004.

"He really handled this badly," Sheinkopf says of Edwards. "Truth is always the refuge of politicians who want to survive, and he didn't tell the truth."

According to ABC News, in an interview that will air tonight, John Edwards told correspondent Bob Woodruff that he did have an affair with 44-year-old Rielle Hunter, but denied that he is the father of her child. The admission of the affair comes despite repeated denials over the past year, and throughout the course of his presidential campaign.

Last October, the National Enquirer ran a story that Hunter, responsible for producing some of Edwards' presidential campaign spots, had given birth to his child, forcing Edwards to publicly deny any romantic involvement at the time.

According to Edwards, his wife was made aware of the relationship back in 2006, and rumors began swirling within the blogosphere. But the mainstream media, reluctant to put much stock on the Enquirer's unnamed sources, largely avoided reporting the story at all.

The admission from Edwards may very well end the former senator's political career and likely nixes any speaking invitation at the Democratic National Convention in Denver at the end of this month.

Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, was rumored as a potential number two for Sen. Barack Obama, but that was probably a long-shot to begin with.

As for what advice Sheinkopf would have given Edwards after the initial report from the National Inquirer some months back: "First I would have found out the truth. Then I would have told him to go public with the truth," says Sheinkopf. "In politics these days, if you lie, you're a dead man."

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day

For The Daring Investor...

Brochure shows idyllic properties for sale - in Iraq

IRISH PROPERTY investors have developed an international reputation for being daring and decisive -but are they ready for holiday homes in Iraq?
Frances O Rourke reports

The brochure for Tarin Hills, a resort to be built near Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdistan region of northern Iraq, comes with the usual idyllic images: swans gliding on a lake in front of red-roofed houses, snow-capped mountains rising in the distance . . . and not a soldier in sight.

Developer Damac Properties, which has an office in Dublin, also highlights that Tarin will be a "fully gated community with security fence, checkpoints, high-tech screening at entrance gates, numerous internal monitoring points and around-the-clock security patrols".

For sale are "Mediterraneanstyle" villas, townhouses and apartments with facilities that include a spa, sports centre, 18-hole golf course, and lots more. So far, no prices have been announced - but Tarin is likely to attract cash buyers only. (Don't bother asking your bank manager for a loan.)

Damac, which is based in Dubai, has signed a €2.5 billion deal to build a new community in what is currently dusty foothills, home to a few families and shepherds.

It is the biggest investment contract signed in Iraq since the start of the Iraq war, according to Kurdistan regional government spokesman Jamal Abdullah. Due for completion in 2010, the new community will have apartments, houses, primary and secondary schools, a medical centre, a lake, hotels and a golf course.

There will also be a children's play area, shopping mall, water and theme park, and hotels.

Erbil is more than 300km from Baghdad, but just 100km from the border with Turkey where Kurdish militants are active. But the regional government is hoping that terrorism will be the past, tourism the future, in this part of Iraq.

From The Irish Times

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Summer sales see inflation rate dip to 4.4%

Inflation dropped to a four-month low in July as falls in the price of clothing and household goods during the summer sales offset rises in fuel and housing costs.

The annual rate of inflation declined to 4.4 per cent from 5 per cent in June, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) said today.

Continue reading here

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Direct Democracy and Judicial Activism

The recent referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland has produced a bizarre marriage of convenience in the rhetoric used by those campaigning against Lisbon. Cries of the success of direct democracy are fused with a firm commitment to the very antithesis of direct democracy, a Supreme Court ruling. The particular ruling, which has become the darling of the ‘no’ campaign, is the Crotty judgment that saw the Supreme Court rule that in the event of any major change within the European Union (EU) that would impact upon the Irish constitution, the government would be obliged to seek the approval of the Irish people for that change.

Ireland was the only country in the EU whose citizens were given the opportunity to vote on the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. Subsequently, many of those on the ‘no’ campaign have used the fact that the rest of Europe denied their citizens the right to express their opinion through referendum to discredit their ratification of Lisbon as nothing other than ‘undemocratic’. They argue that three million freedom-loving Irish were thus voting on behalf of 500 million European Union citizens who were denied their rights!?

Of course, what this ill-informed position does is argue that there is only one way for democracy to operate: Direct Democracy.

The reality is that there are many forms of democratic political system. One major difference is that which exists between Presidential and Parliamentary systems, with executive and legislature separated in one and fused in the other. There are also many forms of electoral system and these can be discussed in terms of (i) Electoral Formula, (ii) District Magnitude and (iii) Threshold. Please allow me a short explanation of the differing types of electoral system, which I believe is necessary as many believe that their system is the one universal standard. For instance, Ireland, which employs the Proportional Representation – Single Transferable Vote system is joined in doing so only by Malta. If you would rather skip Politics 101 then please feel free to skip on a little bit but if you do not know that other systems do exist or how they do then I would advise just persevering on for a few paragraphs.

Electoral Formula:
There are three types of electoral formula used: (i) Plurality, (ii) Majority, (iii) Proportional Representation (PR). In a plurality (first-past-the-post) system a candidate needs only to have more votes than any other candidate to be deemed elected. This system is perhaps the simplest but it is found to be lacking in certain respects. While plurality can be used in multi-member districts, the norm is for plurality to be associated with single-member districts. The plurality system tends to punish small parties and generally leads to a two party system as the only seat in the district will go to the candidate with the largest vote, who generally is the candidate of a large party. As I will discuss later this can often lead to unfavourable results in a highly divided society. The majority system, as is implied in the name, requires that any candidate gains at least fifty percent of the vote. If this does not happen on the first count then a runoff election can be held, usually between the top two candidates or those who have gained a certain percent of the vote in the first election. There are certain systems that negate the need for a runoff election such as the alternative vote system, in which candidates are rank ordered. If no candidate reaches the critical 50% share then the second preference votes are tallied. Majority systems seek consensus and thus they tend to elect those politicians of the centre, often as a compromise when voters are forced to choose the ‘lesser of two evils’. PR seeks to address the imbalances in transferring votes to seats that are created by both the plurality and majority systems. By definition, PR can be used only in multimember districts, for it is obviously impossible to distribute a single seat among many parties. The two major types of PR are the List system and the Single Transferable Vote (STV). The List system is the predominant type of PR system while the STV is used only in Ireland for legislative elections and Malta. The List system provides the voter with a ballot on which they indicate their preference for a certain party but usually not for particular candidates. There are certain countries in which the voter may indicate a preference for a certain candidate but this rarely affects the parties proposed list ranking. This system has been criticised because it takes power from the voter and leaves it with the parties as they decide the order that candidates are placed on the list. The STV on the other hand gives the voter the power to rank candidates irrespective of party. The system has been criticised for creating intra-party competition, thus the argument that it leads to clientelism.

District Magnitude:
Most studies of electoral systems find that the district magnitude (M), the number of seats to be filled in a constituency, is an important aspect to any election. Single member districts (SMD) are usually associated with plurality and majority systems. The basic concept behind the SMD is that it provides a representative who is easily recognisable to constituents and a high degree of accountability exists. If the electorate is unhappy with the performance of the government, or their politician, the choice of who to punish is simple as there was only one candidate representing the constituency. The problem when M=1 is that an election outcome can result in the possibility of a large percentage of the population being unrepresented. An extreme example in a SMD in a plurality system with five candidates yields the following results: A=25%, B=20%, C=18%, D=20%, E=17%. Candidate A wins the only seat in the constituency with 25% of the vote. The remaining 75% of voters remain unrepresented. The highly disproportional results of such a system can be devastating for the legitimacy of democracy in an ethnically divided society such as that of Kenya, for instance.

Threshold:
Some electoral systems introduce the notion of thresholds which must be attained in order to be considered for a seat so as to prevent the advent of small and perhaps extremist parties. Thresholds really only apply to PR systems and in particular to those with high magnitude districts, which produce highly proportional results. In order not to make it too easy for small parties to win election all countries that use large or nationwide districts have instituted minimum thresholds for representation, defined in terms of a minimum number of seats won in the lower-tier districts and/or a minimum percentage of the total national vote. It is not in the interest of proportionality for a very high tier to be established. If such thresholds exist, a higher tier can serve to give a bonus to larger parties.


Returning to the question that this post sets out to address, we must question the contradiction that exists between fighting for direct democracy on the one hand and for judicial activism on the other. The Supreme Court exists to monitor and ensure that legislation is consistent with the constitution but it should keep out of the political realm and defer to the political branches or public opinion. If the Court begins to delve into highly controversial areas such as abortion it is in danger of deepening divisions in society. Ultimately it may lose its legitimacy. We must remember that the Supreme Court is comprised of unelected officials, which is in stark contrast to those elected officials who occupy positions in parliament. The very essence of representative democracy is the idea that we are electing individuals to make decisions on our behalf and to govern in our interests. We may not be in favour of those politicians that we have elected but the option is there to punish them by removing them in the next election.

The argument will of course be given that our politicians are not in tune with the electorate but I am not arguing against direct democracy. Instead, what I am pointing out here is the bizarre contradiction of direct democracy and judicial activism working hand-in-hand.

Ultimately, the arrogance displayed by certain persons by labeling as ‘undemocratic’ the decisions by other states in the EU to ratify the Lisbon Treaty through their democratic processes is truly laughable given their ironic appreciation for their own unelected officials' power.

Of course, those caught in this situation will argue that they are not in favour of unelected officials interfering with their right to direct democracy. Only in situations where it suits them. The double standards on display are reprehensible. But then could anyone expect any better?

Political Cartoon Of The Day

Political Cartoon Of The Day