Hmmmm, the voters rule eh?

Most voters felt compelled to vote for a party/candidate that they didn’t really support but felt was the least bad.

Voters couldn’t lodge a formal vote for no candidate, despite this being a fundamental right within a democracy and within the principle of voting. They could lodge a blank or null vote, upon Latham’s suggestion, but only if they dared to buck the system and the technical legality therein.

Many voters would have had their vote effectively stolen and placed where they really didn’t want it to count by the despicable compulsory preferential voting system.

So, in the end, the winning party (and the loser) would have gained a very large portion of their votes from people that didn’t actually support them and a small portion from people who specifically didn’t want to vote for them!

So does the voter really rule?

Nope, not by a long way.

When we have the optional preferential system at federal level and we have a box on the ballot paper for no candidate, then a true representation of voters’ wishes will be gained. Only then could we possibly say that democracy is alive and well and that the voters rule.

Jennifer's premise, just like Mark B's, is that Australian voters went to the booths with a clear idea in their collective minds: that of deliberately creating a hung Parliament to show the major parties what's what.

What nonsense! Many Australians, prior to Saturday, wouldn't have known what a hung parliament was.

Now we have various pseudo-intellectuals trying to make sense out of the bizarre result, kind of like trying to read patterns in the tea leaves.

Most Australians, other than those unfortunates who are rusted on Labor and Coalition fanatics, vote on the basis of 'what's in it for me?' Which party is offering me the most in the vote-buying auction? This time around, the bribes were smaller and those people were lost.

Then we had those who, in 2007, thought they'd voted in Kevin Rudd rather than elect the Labor Party which in turn decides on the Prime Minister.

Then we had those who, forced to vote, left forms blank or drew silly pictures on their ballot forms proving how moronic they are. Then we had those who are religious who wouldn't vote for Julia Gillard because, sensibly, she doesn't believe in God. Then there were those who wouldn't vote for Gillard because she wasn't married and had no children...there are thousands of examples, all equally ridiculous.

And so the farce of Australian democracy goes on and on and changes that would make it more effective are never made.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

My thoughts are that the politicans, will not or are unable to take responsibility for the message that the australian public is sending them.

Typically it will everyone else's fault. Everyone's except their own that is.

Even if our politicans do understand the message of the masses, they are like chameleons and any changes will be of short term, a bit like an alcoholics promise to give up drinking. Well meaning at the time, but of no long term substance.

Speaking of faceless men and women, this syndrome was illustrated during the Howard years when hardly any voices contrary to the official party line were ever heard, or allowed.

For instance not one of them ever raised a voice criticizing our involvement in the American war against the people of Iraq.

We have always heard from the right wing of politics objecting about the "power" exerted by the unions. If this "power" is exerted for the workers - whether they are in manufacturing workshops, Clothing factories, Hospital staff or the hundred of other wage or salary earners, to try to ensure that they are treated with due respect and in the accordance of fair living conditions, that is the right attitude and should be applauded. Unfortunately, since 1970, a group or groups ( Both Liberal/national and Labor), have got into power who have neither intelligence or integrity. The top tax of 66.6% found in the 1950 to 1970, to fix up the main problem of the depression caused by excessively high incomes with the high costs of goods and services that was caused. Unfortunately, since then People have got into power who don't know and don't care that they have driven our country back into a recession (three times since 1980), and the past treasurers don't give a damn. Yet the latest one was not thrown out like those families - who don't get enough with the 2 or 3 days pay a week work - as he should have been. Unfortunately, the people of a district usually protect the member if he/she is a minister in the government, and it is rare for the district. We can only hope that a government will fix things up so we can get and keep good government, and throw out any who are incompetent or corrupt before they cause trouble.

Your article doesn't make sense.

First you say...

'Senior complainers from both parties have already had the arrogance to accuse voters of some kind of collective idiocy for bringing about this current situation. As if millions of us somehow conspired to achieve a hung parliament. '

Then you say....

'We voters have claimed our authority in this election. We’ve declined to furnish either major party with a mandate to govern'

You sound confused to me.