Not to mention BAYGON that the present system is heavily in the favor of corrupt majors and against independents.

The parties that take the most bribes have the most cash to throw around for spots on TV- and with compulsory voting, a much larger ratio of voters are people that will judge only on the TV spots and election ads which candidate to vote for- or what they even stand for.

Because our system also only allows candidates to represent electorates, the richer parties have an easier time funding their own reps in more localities.

Parties that do not take donations on principal are at a disadvantage at getting attention, relying on word and mount- against the word-and-mouth myths and slander.

But I'd like it to remain that way- as the next generation of internet users spring up will be more inclined to use Google for research- making adverts obsolete, than to make ignorant whinges like the previous one.

Terminally ill? Hmm, maybe, but, seriously challenged - indeed!

ELECTORAL MATTERS COMMITTEE 2 WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER 2009
COLIN ANTHONY BARRY, New South Wales Electoral Commissioner and Chair, Election Funding Authority

"It is fundamental in our system of representative democracy that elected members of Parliament and local government councillors are accountable to the citizens whom they represent. They are expected to act in the interests of those citizens. Often this is assumed or taken for granted, but it should be acknowledged as the cornerstone of our democracy."

"At the State level citizens will make a choice between a single party and a coalition as to who will form government."

"The third pillar is the supporting of parties to perform their functions. There is no doubt that political parties are the major players in the Australian representative democracy. They are the main opinion framers and the agenda setters. At Federal and State levels the Parliaments are party Chambers. The lawmakers are party members and, without doubt, the majority of people who participate in politics in Australia do so through the party system. The parties are central to our system of representative democracy, and in moving forward they will remain as such well into the future."

Now if the Electoral Commisioner can't identify that he has said that individuals elect local representatives to represent them, and then rallies behind the party system (ie. my local member represents a political party, not constituents) - then things are really broke...

The indications are that there is a real possibility that in both South Australia and Tasmania the election result will be a hung parliament.
I know the following is a fantasy, that it will not happen but wouldnt it be good if the various independents and minor parties in both SA and Tasmania argued that given it is a hung parliament it follows that the electorate do not want a single party to govern. So they would argue that we should have a joint sitting where all the elected members select a ministerial team. To ensure that it is a fair process the Chief justice in both states would be invited to preside over the conduct of a secret ballot. Hopefully both states would then have the benefit of a ministerial team that comprises the most capable members; those who enjoy respect across party boundaries for integrity, hard work and intelligence. Contentious issues will still be influenced by party politics but at least there is an implicit understanding that all are there to work for the good of the whole state not just for the greater glory of their party or to keep the carpetbaggers sweet.
Of course it is just a fantasy...

My guess Baygon that if that happened the Libs and Labor would agree to try whatever they could to sabotage the coalition government at any cost to force the other reps back out of governance- be it to force a dissolusion and another election, or somehow broker a deal to simply get the other parties booted.

John Töns wrote:
"Few seem to be asking the question: Does it really matter? Will a change of government presage any real changes? Will there be any notable changes in the script in the soap opera that is parliament or will it be merely the case of the understudy getting the opportunity to strut the stage?"

I would suggest that the reason few ask such questions is that they have been asked before, and the answers keep coming back that our democracy is a sham at best. Furthermore, nobody knows how to introduce any of the truly beneficial changes possible without undergoing some drastic upheaval. That's the way it's going to stay as long as we keep electing people who represent parties instead of their electors. And electors will never figure out how to avoid electing party reps as long as they (the electors) keep consuming the newsmedia which rarely even touches on such matters, but chooses to fill our heads with scandal, trivia,and sport.