The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > System reconstruction in Australia is long overdue > Comments

System reconstruction in Australia is long overdue : Comments

By Klaas Woldring, published 3/1/2014

Non-Westminster systems in western Europe provide alternatives Australia needs to look at. The Scandinavian, Dutch, German and Austrian systems provide flexibilities that do not exist here.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Hasbeen, the "mess" in the senate is a result of preferences.

Proportional representation doesn't need preferences, you can simply allocate the seats left over after full quotas to those parties with the largest remainder/partial quota.

Nor should the ballot papers have to list all candidates if they're nominated under a party name (the party name should be sufficient).

"I doubt the people of say North Queensland, or the Kimberley would get any representation at all with a proportional system."

They'd get what they deserve: one vote, like everyone else.

And what if a Kimberley voter wants to vote for one of those "ratbag" inner city parties?
Will the Nudist Gun Owners Party be nominating candidates in Woop Woop?

Chris C "But it is not necessary for the national government to run everything."

If you want to simplify and minimalise government, it is.

If the national level doesn't do everything, you'll still need other levels, which is exactly the excess we're trying to get rid of.

ybgirp "outlawing of all political parties. A government of true independents who legislate by consensus"

Political parties are based on "consensus".
People join them because they fit their own perspective.
A Green without The Greens would still be a Green.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 8:45:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Klaas,

I’m not accepting a one-word answer on a website as the last word on which country has the most politicians per capita, particularly when I’ve already shown that the UK has three times the rate of Victoria and, by extension, probably more than Australia as a whole.

Given that every country in the world of more than 10 million people and every country in the world of more than 500,000 square kilometres has at least three levels of government, I can’t see a single argument for ending federation.

Nor are party lists systems superior to the single transferable vote. We are guaranteed the right to elect individuals to the Senate under section 7 of the Constitution, and there is no chance at all of a whole new Constitution every being put to the people much less voted for.

There is nothing wrong with above-the-line voting as it has reduced the informal vote while protecting our constitutional right to vote for individual candidates.

Shockadelic,

PR does not need preferences, but the superior STV version does. It ensures that every one elected to the Senate from a state has received the necessary level of support, a quota of 14.3 per cent of the vote. (See Post 288 at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/09/25/senate-call-of-the-board/?comment_page=6/#comments.)

The national level doesn’t do everything just about anywhere. The issue is whether you to get to vote for those who do the doing, not the size or organsiation of the bureaucracy.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 7:38:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The US House of Representatives has 435 voting members. The Senate has 100 members. There are also 7250 legislators in the US’s state assemblies
(http://www.empirecenter.org/html/legislators_number.cfm). That makes a total of 7785 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 40,334 people (in a population of 314 million).

The German Bundestag has 631 members. The Bundesrat has 69 members. There are also 1689 legislators in Germany’s state assemblies (Wikipedia articles on each state). That makes a total of 2389 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 34,324 people (in a population of 82 million).

The Canadian House of Commons has 308 members. The Senate has 105 members. There are also 757 legislators in Canada’s provincial and territorial assemblies
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_assemblies_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories). That makes a total of 1170 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 29, 915 people (in a population of 35 million).

The Austrian National Council has 183 members. The Federal Council has 62 members. There are also 448 legislators in Austria’s state assemblies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_seats_in_the_Austrian_Landtage). That makes a total of 693 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 12, 266 people (in a population of 8.5 million).

The Swiss National Council has 200 members. The Council of States has 46 members. There are also 2728 legislators in Switzerland’s cantonal assemblies (Wikipedia articles on each canton). That makes a total of 2974 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 2690 people (in a population of 8 million).

Australia clearly does not have the highest ratio of politicians to population in the world.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:54:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here are another three countries with lower population-to-politician ratios than Australia.

Belgium’s Chamber of Representatives has 150 members. The Senate has 71 members. There are also 1115 legislators in Belgium’s regional, community and provincial assemblies (various Wikipedia articles and Belgium government websites). That makes a total of 1336 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 8234 people (in a population of 11 million).

France’s National Assembly has 577 members. The Senate has 348 members. There are also 1880 members of France’s regional councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_regional_elections,_2004) and an estimated 4147* members of the general councils of the 96 departments of metropolitan France (various Wikipedia articles). That makes a total of 6952 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 9494 people (in a population of 66 million).

(* The estimate is calculated from a sample of 10 randomly chosen departments, whose average number of councillors was 43.2.)

Spain’s General Assembly of Representatives has 577 members. The Senate has 266 members. There are also an estimated 1249 members of Spain’s autonomous assemblies (various Wikipedia articles). That makes a total of 2092 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 22,467 people (in a population of 47 million).

(* I found 921 members for 14 autonomies, giving an average of 65.8 deputies each, suggesting a total of 1249 for all 19 autonomies.)

I’d say the myth is well and truly busted.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 1:41:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris C "We are guaranteed the right to elect individuals to the Senate under section 7 of the Constitution"

It says nothing about electing "individuals", only "senators".
Both independents and party members can become "senators".

"PR does not need preferences, but the superior STV version does"

Why is it "superior" to last remainder?

If they don't get a full quota *without* preferences, then they don't really have 14.3 percent support at all.

Both preferences and last remainder allow elections with less than the full quota (on first preferences), but the former is more complicated.

And if those preferences are party-determined (most people vote above the line), may result in election outcomes the voter would never intend.
Many Lib/Nat or even Labor voters might have preferred their votes be distributed to One Nation back in the day, but they were listed as *last* preference by the apparatchiks.

"The national level doesn’t do everything just about anywhere."

Someone has to be first. Why not us?
Australia has been the first in many other electoral/political innovations.

The political systems of the world were invented long before computers.
Computers change everything.
The entire nation's garbage collection could be organised by a single clerk on a single computer. It could even be fully automated.

"The issue is whether you to get to vote for those who do the doing, not the size or organisation of the bureaucracy."

So you agree it wouldn't matter if the national government did everything, as long as it's elected in a truly democratic way.

Size is an issue for me and many other reformers. Cut, cut, cut!

Any reform that doesn't include a *nationally* proportional result doesn't qualify as true democracy in my book.

"Australia" (the whole enchilada) is a more valid political entity than any regional subdivision could ever be, yet has *no* representative body!

And however low our pollie-pop ratio is, it could always be lower!
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 5:06:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Swedish Riksdag has 349 members. There are also 1662 members of Sweden’s county councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Councils_of_Sweden). That makes a total of 2011 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 4724 people (in a population of 9.5 million).

The House of Representatives of the Netherlands has 150 members. The Senate has 50 members. There are also 764 members of the States-Provincial, the provincial legislatures of the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Provincial_(Netherlands). That makes a total of 989 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 16,987 people (in a population of 16.8million).

The Folketing of Denmark has 179 members. There are also 205 members of the regional councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Denmark). That makes a total of 384 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 14,583 people (in a population of 5.6 million).

The House of Representatives of New Zealand has 120 members. There are also 207 members of the regional councils (regional council websites). Some regional councils are also local councils, but most have several local councils below them. That makes a total of 327 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 13,456 people (in a population of 4.4 million).

I have not included the members of the European parliament in any of the calculations, but if I did, all the ratios for EU member countries would be even lower.

The summary of the ratios of politicians to population follows:
1. Switzerland 1:2690
2. Sweden: 1:4724
3. Belgium 1:8234
4. France 1:9494
5. Austria 1:12,266
6. New Zealand 1:13,456
7. Denmark 1:14,583
8. The Netherlands 1:16,987
9. Spain 1:22,467
10. Australia 1:25,485
11. Canada 1:29, 915
12. Germany 1:34,324
13. USA 1:40,334

Australia thus ranks 10th out of the 13 countries I have examined. It is nowhere near having the fewest people per politician in the world. In fact, its ratio is 10 times that if the country in my list with the lowest one
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 9 January 2014 2:37:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy