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 > Diminishing democracy: the Australian senate changes > Comments

Diminishing democracy: the Australian senate changes : Comments

By Binoy Kampmark, published 7/3/2016

Fruit salad selections to the upper house are made because of an assortment of extraordinary preference swaps and a system known as 'voting above the line'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Yes and however, The changes put the preferencing back in the voters hands, allegedly And given the number of parties and how to vote cards, doing justice to a table cloth sized ballot paper is probably made more complex and difficult!?

Optional preferencing would have been better and simply destroyed the ubiquitous backroom deals, which will still go on, except by folk with a slightly larger primary vote?

Optional preferencing would likely mean most folk would just vote 1 and end forever the preferential swaps that have gifted the greens more seats and allowed the nats to have any!? And given that is so the only thing keeping the coalition in power!

I mean, how often have the libs gained enough seats to govern in their own right, or a larger primary vote than Labor?

And the blue and white collar coalition, all that has allowed the co-ops to be dismantled, the sugar subsidies to be withdrawn and the floor ripped out from under the wool market?

All of which has depopulated the bush and effectively destroyed many generational family farms! We were once a bustling dairy based locality, now we import most of our milk, cream, butter and cheese etc, from who knows where?

Well done nats!

Inside influence?

What?

Like roll over and beg for a tummy rub as your own constituency was effectively demolished?

That said, if the government was genuinely reform minded, (LOL) then proportional representation would replace the hopscotch dog's breakfast of the system we have now. Just don't hold your breath!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 7 March 2016 8:10:39 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
Well something has to change, given the current fundamentally flawed system was self evidently designed by that villain of evil repute, Gerry Mander!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 7 March 2016 8:14:05 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
For the first time, due to partial preferencing above the line, it will become possible to make a formal vote without having to grit one's teeth in trying to determine which of the major parties is the lesser evil.

While the Australian electoral system falls way short of democracy and while democracy itself fails way short of the principle of non-violence, this welcome change makes it a notch better than before.

Sadly this option of partial preferencing is not yet available for the lower house.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 7 March 2016 8:52:59 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 senate is clearly not doing what it was meant to do. Anybody not in Qld, NSW or Vic can see that.

I would propose we get rid of the "senators" and have the Sates appoint a rep for the Federal Senate, that would vote in accordance with the State government's wishes.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 7 March 2016 8:55:08 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
Oh and make the lower house proportional Representative.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 7 March 2016 8:57:10 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
People belonging to minorities, as this gentleman does, are always at odds with the majority in any country. Their solution? Stay in countries where they are the majority, or return to such countries.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 7 March 2016 12:07:45 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 proposed changes are s huge gerrymander to the major parties, as they encourage people to vote in a way where the value of their vote gets destroyed rather than distributed further.

What they should do instead is keep the current system with one minor change to greatly reduce the value of preference deals: allow people to number as many boxes above the line as they want to. So if they number one box, it will be distributed as now. If they number six boxes, it will be distributed according to the voter's preference but if the vote reaches the end of those preferences before all senate seats are filled, any furhter distribution will be done according to their number one group's voting ticket. And if they fill in all the boxes, it will be distributed entirly according to the voter's own preferences, exactly as it would be if they'd voted below the line (theoretically there'd be a difference if the final choice came down to two below the line only candidates, but that's virtually impossible).

Party deals may be undesirable, but they're unavoidable (unless we want to ban How To Vote cards) and they're nowhere near as bad as destroying the value of votes.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 7 March 2016 12:32:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One must not forget that other dog of a voting system... The Hare-Clark fiasco.

All that it ensures is hung Parliaments where the tail wags the dog.

Thus Tasmania has the Greens governing then with 15% of the Vote.

25 individual seats instead of 5x5 seats , thank you.

At least , that way I will really know who my local Pollie is ,instead,of the current shambles.
Posted by Aspley, Monday, 7 March 2016 1:03:50 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
Dear Aidan,

<<as they encourage people to vote in a way where the value of their vote gets destroyed rather than distributed further.>>

The proposed changes will relieve many voters' conscience as they will no longer be required to speculate (and perhaps be wrong about) which of the major parties is likely to be slightly less immoral than the other.

I definitely would like to have the peace of mind to know that whoever comes to power is not there because of my "preference". Let those politicians know too that they were elected by and represent perhaps only 7% of the population.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 7 March 2016 1:23:38 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
Hare/Clark? no good? So, what about Duckworth Lewis or Jerry Mander? No? Optional preferencing? No?

Well then, what about uninterfered with straight out, proportional representation? With say 5% the lowest possible cutoff point? Gaining 3-5 seats or places?

And those with less, being able to give gift their partial proportion to another(like minded) party with at least a mandatory minimum 5%?

And given that would be the only possible backroom deal, limit the dirty deals done in the dead of night that completely defy the clear and unmistakeable will of the people!

Which current preferencing practises ENABLES NOW! And the patent reason for the clear and visible rubbishing of anything else?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 7 March 2016 4:54:26 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
Yuyutsu, the decision to do nothing is still a decision. Denying responsibility doesn't make you any less responsible.

________________________________________________________________________

ttbn, what's wrong with being at odds with the majority?

________________________________________________________________________

Cobber, in SA the Senate seems to be working very well. Why do those in the eastern states see it differently?
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 7 March 2016 5:10:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Aidan,

It's not about responsibility - it's about refraining from doing evil.

The option of doing nothing already exists: I was not talking about that but about voting for my favourite party(s) without having to perform something unconscionable as a side-effect. That option did not exist till now (and still would be missing when voting for the lower house).

If other people want to vote for the oppressive major parties, then it should weigh against those other-people's conscience, not on mine.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 7 March 2016 5:52:05 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. All

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