The Forum > Article Comments > Tasmania and the Swiss example > Comments
Tasmania and the Swiss example : Comments
By Klaas Woldring, published 14/4/2010The conundrum in Tasmania revolves around the apparent unworkability of the Australian dominant electoral system.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 11:15:48 AM
| |
Spot on Klaas, I doubt anything will change on this front though for the reason you suggested at the end of the article - the old parties have too much to loose. Even as a kid I thought to myself how does someone who gets less than 50% of the vote represent those that didn't vote for them? Answer, they don't and it shows. I have a growing dislike for the status quo of the "two-party preferred" system non-sense. This is one reason I am running for a Lower House Seat at the next election. Will I win? Based on this article, I have buckley's, but I will give it my all, as I do in everything I try.
"Be the change you want to see" Adam Butler Posted by Bikesusenofuel, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 12:30:39 PM
| |
There is a field of study called "Social Choice Theory" devoted to investigating the mechanics and properties of voting systems.
It turns out that creating a voting system that every one agrees is "fair" is not an easy task. Indeed, once you have 3 or more candidates/political parties there is a the mathematical proof that it is actually impossible to create a "fair" voting system that maintains the (obvious/natural) criteria that the vast majority of people consider a voting system should have. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem : for more details. Posted by thinkabit, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 1:01:54 PM
| |
thinkabit: True, but you can rank the systems by an agreed measure of fairness. Combining this with cost and robustness can lead to a ranking of voting systems that is not completely arbitrary.
Needless to say, the current system is not particularly good in fairness, cost or robustness. Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 1:29:55 PM
| |
I have thought for years that we should have proportional representation in all houses of parliament in Australia.Queensland with it's unicameral system (courtesy of Labor in the 20s)needs to reinstate the Legislative Council.
Will this happen? Not likely unless there is a concerted campaign by enough citizens.Given the extent of political ignorance and laziness in the electorate,not likely,either. Our federal system,with it's division of powers is a good starting point.Some misguided people want to abolish the states on the grounds of efficiency.Proportional representation would enhance the checks and balances inherant in the federal system. Posted by Manorina, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 5:17:29 PM
| |
Indeed Klaas- dropping the Westminster system in favor of the (actually democratic) Swiss system of voting and representation, (not to mention direct-democracy if I may say) would radically improve the woeful setup we have now.
Of course, every member of Liberal and Labor know that the day such a system gets in- party time's over! Fantastic article! Needs to be read by as many Australians as possible. Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 8:43:44 PM
|
Which of the two major parties will do it though?
How do we break from an adversarial system which, aided by the moronic media, invokes and frames every issue in terms of the extremes?
As for lookalike parties...the Liberals have now embraced corporate welfare, unlimited currency manipulation (wilful boom-bust amplification) and opaque accounting, while Labour has also embraced corporate welfare, lower real wages, and now wants to censor the internet despite overwhelming advice to the contrary.
Despite strong evidence, we follow the US into policy that we *know* doesn't work (health, banking, schooling, transport, R&D) and ignore the alternatives that we know *do* work. This points very stronly as corruption and vested interests at work.
Religious groups appear to have mastered the art of subversion too. Under Howard Christian cults such as the "Exclusive Brethren" were allowed to do their own thing and influence policy. At least the US had the courts ban the teaching of religious dogma as science. Here it slipped in without anyone caring! Rudd appears to be following this tradition without any issues. As for Conroy...
It seems the "system" has effectively filtered out anyone resembling a statesman and has left the opinionated, ignorant scum to rise to the top.
We have no genuine "Liberal" nor real labour parties any more as both have approached a ridiculous fascist/socialist blend, which simply makes no sense! We are so far from a real democracy it is tragic.