National (or Federal) level is all that counts, unfortunately. So no, South Australia didn’t beat NZ to the punch since South Australia soon become part of the Commonwealth Of Australia, which didn’t grant women the vote at the time. NZ granted Female Suffrage in its modern sense first, end of story. I’m sure if you looked hard enough you could find examples of women getting the vote at a localised level in various places far earlier in history, but sadly they too aren’t considered to count (excuse the pun).
It’s worth bearing in mind that this doesn’t mean the UK was the first to grant women the vote.
…dude, your country has claimed Tim and Neil Finn, Phar Lap and the Pavlova. (You can keep Russell Crowe.) Don’t even think about claiming to be the first country to grant Universal Female Suffrage!
I doubt any form of meaningful democracy could be upheld in a world government. I personally think that if you don’t run into your president or equivalent a couple times a month in the local supermarket or pizza take-away, then the distance between the ruler and the people is already suspiciously remote. Humanity has not evolved to have a meaningful concept of 6 billion people.
Agreed, and shouldn’t be the goal anyway. People as a whole make incredibly stupid and short-sighted decisions when placed in a direct democratic forum. Many vote based on party line, religious doctrine, or what directly benefits themselves instead of society as a whole. A large portion is simply unable to understand the concepts, another huge block is able but uninterested or unwilling, and the remainder are either employed in it or think it’s a game. What we NEED to do is suck all the fun and opportunity for controversy in government and ensure it stays focused on doing what it is supposed to do. Until we have a responsible, fact driven media and limitations on political “fair game”, any sort of true democracy is doomed to fail.
You will never get a world constitution without a: Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Right to a jury trial
Freedom from unreasonable search
Freedom of the press Freedom of religion
Since more people die by the hand of their own governments ( Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s Red China, Cambodia, black Africans, Australian aboriniginees, Native American Inidans, etc. etc. ) than by foreign armies, a 1 world government will not stop civilians from being masacreed.
In fact, even more people might be murdered by the 1 world government than are murdered today by foreign invasions.
Majority rule bub!!
…and if you dont like the rules and regulations and restrictions of the new 1 world government and if there is no Right to Bear Arms, then move out and go someplace else.
YOu are forgetting that the new provinces previously called China and India will not have large populations. The people who now live in those countries will move out of them in the first few months of the new world government. The land area that used to be called China and India could very well be sparsely populated after just a couple of years. I would guess that the places with the best climates and the freshest waters of the world would become the most densely populated.
As far as the the Right to Bear Arms, the people of American decent are never going to get rid of their guns, and there could never be a 1 world government without guns, so get used to it.
And BTW, there is no such thing as “my country/your country”, there is only 1 world country.
Do you want Joh Beleke Peterson and Derryn Hinch back? please take them.
OK OP:
I would not be happy with a world constitution as it would be sooo watered down with so many loopholes you could use it like the Bible to justify anything.
That’s the thing I was talking about in one of my earliest posts in this thread. A tyrant or government out of control, can sometimes ONLY be stopped by an all out war against it. With a one world government, there is no power left to fight them and take them down (WAR). They can do what they want and get away with it. Who’s going to stop them?
No they don’t. Getting rid of the Presidential system solves lobbyists and special interest groups entirely. These two “problems” nearly do not exist under the Westminster system, which doesn’t have term limits either. All the fuss over SIGs and lobbyists is a distinctly American phenomenon.
Curtis, IMHO, it is far, far more likely that there will be a World War in your life time than a world government. If there is ever a world government it is at least 100 years away if not more, assuming there is anyone left to rule over by then.
