Here in Western Australia the ALP campaigned to bring in one vote one value which was brought in in a somewhat modified form in 2006. A redistribution was carried out which on the surface was favourable to the ALP but with a hopeless Carpenter junta not even that could save their skin in 2008.Perhaps Anna Bligh and Julia Gillard and their zombie cohorts should have read the writing on the wall and however uncomfortable stuck to what they promised ar their respective elections. then we would not be told "We woz robbed" as this writer implies.

The situation could also be ameliorated by Qld having a bicameral parliament, like every other state

Excellent article, stating what I have been thinking ever since I learned about the Queensland state election results. This is indeed very bad for democracy. [Like to add that I am critical but quite neutral when it comes to politics, not leaning towards either Liberals or ALP, could go either way]

Crispin,

Qld has optional preferential voting. Don't you think that would tend to undermine your argument about over representation by NLP members.

Nearly 40% of the Greens(7%) preferences were exhausted and Katters hatters got 11% but I don't know their preference flows.

That might also undermine your argument somewhat, don't you think?

The overwhelming majorities obtained by Beattie in the early 2000's didn't at all lead to dysfunction ... so why would Newman's overwhelming majority not do the same.

Is it a bias you have that suggests the cases might be different?

I might also ask, which members 'are not the sort of people equipped for the job'? Did you state the the same of the Labor members of the Labor landslides?

The Red party has not just been knocked out, they've tossed out of the ring altogether ... and only because of their sorry performance not because of cronyism or criminality.

I tend to agree with Hayden, the ALP has had it's day... and I'd add calls for changes to the electrol system cannot do anything to save them.

I also note you leave out any reference to the other element in our system. The media. It will hold the Newman Goverment to account ... where it didn't during Beattie's and Bligh's reigns ... of inaction.

imajulianuter, I think you are being a bit too kind to the Beattie lead government. Lots of dodgy stuff during that era, the massive syphoning of funds from GOC's rather than investing in necessary maintenance and upgrading being one. The sheer number of Labor mates on the boards of GOC's being another part of that.

The tie between government advertising and the media presents on ongoing issue regarding the media holding the government to account. The media treads a difficult line when it goes after acustomer with a multi million dollar advertising budget.

R0bert

Good article Crispin.

But the things you discuss are overwhelmed by bigger considerations. The biggest is that the Libs and Labs are virtually identical. We simply don’t have a meaningful choice!!

They’re both absolutely in bed with big business, big donations and big growth!

Any political entity that espouses a philosophy different to massive never-ending economic and population growth simply doesn’t get a look-in. Even in 2012 with absolutely massive problems with rapid population growth in southeast Queensland and a very large amount of concern about it, we don’t have a meaningful alternative political force competing or office.

The amount of concern about this sort of thing that is being expressed on forums like OLO is just totally not reflected in government!

THIS is the really big flaw in our supposedly democratic system!

The electoral system here in Queensland is almost what the ALP wanted. We used to have preferential voting. The Beattie ALP government changed it to optional preferential. Hence the sad state of affairs when so many people only 'vote 1'. After bringing in that change it was the ALP that pushed really hard with the constant slogan 'just vote 1'.
Prior to making changes there had been a major inquiry with public hearings into electoral systems. I was present at the Cairns meeting and spoke (in favour of the Hare Clark system with Robson rotation).
Also there was a Labor man (who later was a Minister). He spoke strongly for First Past the Post. When the ALP failed to get their prefence-first past the post, they did the next best thing in their view and made the preferencing optional. Lots of people can reasonably complain about the landslide result a week ago. But one group cannot - the ALP. They wanted the system; they fixed it to get the system. Blame them.
On the issue of no upper house that has been a bother to me for decades - especially in the Jo BP days of yore! If we had an Upper house with a different voting system then we would be - perhaps - better off.
But who killed the upper house in Queensland? the ALP. So blame them for that as well.

Eyejaw, optional preferential is the best voting system. Vastly better than the disgusting antidemocratic compulsory preferential system that we have at the federal level, which forces you to declare preferences and can consequently make your vote count where you have no intention of it counting.

And it gives a better indication of a voter’s wishes than first-past-the-post.

It is one of the few good aspects in our terribly flawed ‘democratic’ system.

The point that has not been made is that in each electorate we vote
for an individual in each seat.
Now, if the voters in each seat vote, by a small majority, for one
party then that can give the result of which you complain.

Well, tough, thats the way the voters wanted it.
Live with it !

We do not have representative government since the wishes of the party room takes precedence over the wishes of the constituents. If party discipline were restricted to matters explicit in the electoral campaign and relaxed in other matters we would then have representative democracy. Since the executive is at present chosen by the parliamentarians there is no way to prevent the prime minister or premier from representing a minority.

We can dump the Westminster system and elect the executive directly. Montesquieu advocated separation of powers with the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government independent of each other. The executive would than be free to choose cabinet officers without a need for them to be parliamentarians. The chief executive would then be representative of the entire country, and the legislators would be representative of their districts.

If you want to complain about democracy look at the ridiculous amount of influence the Greens have had over Julia. Many people see Bob Brown with his mad faith as the defacto PM. This is a far greater assault on democracy than QLD.

Ludwig. I agree with you on most things, in particular on the population issue (I put a letter in to the Oz yesterday talking the numerical facts about population in Mali, Chad and Niger.Not published of course.) However re electoral matters I disagree. I cannot comprehend the idea - that you seemingly have - that if my prefered candidate loses I see all the rest as equally bad.
I live in Mulgrave electorate. Candidates were ALP, NLP, Green and Katterists. Let us assume for arguments sake that I want to vote Green. The candidate loses. Are you really telling me that you cannot see any difference at all between ALP and Katter ON ENVIRONMENTAL grounds? Or between ALP and NLP? Think Wild Rivers for example.
Interestingly enough I had exactly this argumemnt with my sister the last time I was in UK. She is rusted on Conservative. When I talked of preferential voting she climbed up the wall (to my amusement!) because the mere idea that she might have to choose to vote Labour even against Dracula, Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot was incendiary.
I am astonished to find you, Ludwig, adopting the same approach as she does/did.

"We can dump the Westminster system and elect the executive directly".

Wouldn't this give us a celebrity-style system like the US? which is more dysfunctional than ours.

All systems of electing a parliament are flawed. the question then becomes: which is the least flawed system where the result fairly represents the spread of opinion in the electorate, achieves stable government, and safeguards the several imporetant functions of opposition, including holding the government accountable. (Those who rely on the press are simply living in fantasy land).
The only system which fairly meets all of those objectives is a form of proportional representation. Personally I favour one similar to either New Zealand or Germany where a 5% minimum threshold keeps out the lunatic fringe and/or a multiplicuty of parties that can paralyse government. There are a number of those examples around. Unfortunately the current two major parties win office sufficiently often to receive the Pavlovian intermittent reinforcement that persuades them to stick with the current, highly dysfunctional, system.
The plus side of the annihilation of Labor in NSW and QLD in the past twelve months is that they might be forced to reconsider the electoral system rather than navel gazing about their own inadequacies. the down side is that history teaches us that they are almost certainly likely not to do anything at all other than stagger on as before, to the detriment of us all, and not least our democracy.

Dear Sillysally,

Yes, it would give Australia a system like the US. Abraham Lincoln, Frankin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Grover Cleveland along with a number of others have been president under that system. No system will result in all good chief executives, but I think the US has done pretty well.

Surely the simplest and most effective guarantee of responsible governance is to have an upper house whose members are elected on a state-wide basis for a term twice the length of the lower house term, and with half of upper house members coming up for re-election mid-way through each lower house term?

Stability and accountability built in.

Eyejaw, interesting. I’ve raised the issue of preferential versus compulsory voting on OLO a few times. There hasn’t been a lot of interest and it has been clear that most people don’t really understand the connotations.

Optional preferential voting gives the voter the choice of marking just one candidate or declaring preferences as far as they wish to do so. They can mark just one square on the ballot paper or all squares or anywhere in between.

This gives an accurate presentation of a voter’s wishes, which sits in total contrast to the compulsory preferential system where every box must be sequentially numbered or else the vote is void. Even if the voter’s intentions are perfectly clear, if they leave one square unmarked, their vote is annulled.

In many instances if they wish to not vote for either of the two big parties and mark them last and second last, there vote will end up counting for the one they mark second last, after preferences have filtered down. This is just entirely disgusting. I can’t understand how this absolute rort of a system has remained in place.

So as far as democracy and the principle of voting goes, the optional preferential system is definitely the best one.

<< Let us assume for arguments sake that I want to vote Green. The candidate loses. Are you really telling me that you cannot see any difference at all between ALP and Katter ON ENVIRONMENTAL grounds? >>

If a person votes green and reckons that the ALP is better than Katter on environmental grounds, then they’ll mark the ALP with a 2 or at least with some number higher than Katter or they’ll leave Katter blank. If they don’t declare preferences, then it is pretty good indication that they don’t care whether ALP or Katter’s mob get in and don’t consider one to be better than the other.

So, what sort of system do you wish for eyejaw? I can’t quite imagine what alternative there is to OPV that would cater for your concerns.

James the one thing we want in an electoral system is one that gives us good government. The last thing we need is something like Tasmania or New Zealand, with their dysfunctional governments. I can only suppose you hate progress with your ideas.

The fairest is first past the post, & all BS stopped. Preferential is bad enough, but the moment you start this proportional rubbish, the rubbish get control, with balance of power rorts.

When it comes to Labor, they can never be pleased.

First they got the famed gerrymander, where country electorates carried more weight. Suited them when there were 6 farm labourers to every farmer.

They got rid of the upper house to free their arm for skulduggery.

When the farmer could not afford labour, they bitched about the inequity of their established gerrymander, until it was abolished.

They introduced "just vote one" with optional preferential voting when compulsory preferential voting started favouring the coalition.

While they had a tight hold they loved the system.

Now they have cr4pped in their nest too often, they want another change to tip the playing field. Well no thanks mate, we'll keep something reasonably sensible.

No Hasbeen. I do not "hate progress". I would consider that my views are more progressive than 90% of the commentators on this site.

As for the NZ government being "dysfunctional" are we talking about the same country? NZ has had a modified pr system several elections, all of which resulted in stable governments. The fact that coaliitons were needed to obtain a parliamentary majority reinforces the point that it was democracy at work. At the last election (2011) the public had a referendum on whether or not to retain the pr system or opt for something different. A solid majority voted to retain the system as it was.

Either the majority of the NZ public are deluded (I know that is a default Australian position) or they think it works pretty well.

I spent a fair part of my working life in Scandanavia, all of whose countries have a pr system. Check out any of the standard tables published on living standards, health care, democracy, etc etc and the Scandavian countries regularly feature in the top five. Is it a coinhcidence, or is it that having a political system that actually takes account of a wide range of opinion and works towards a consensus on how best to achieve a good result is actually better than the appalling rubbish infliced on the Australian public?

"No system will result in all good chief executives, but I think the US has done pretty well"

I don't know davidf, as far as democratic capitalism goes, in comparison to say Sweden, or even Australia, the US is more dysfunctional, with it's dreadfully low minimum wage and drastic inequalities, I don't think we want to go down that path.

The US has had its inspirational leaders but they were of a different age and the current system doesn't seem capable of producing their like again.

Obama no doubt has it in him but the machine undermines his reforms.

I think it will take a committed political party these days, rather than a charismatic.

I definitely believe our preferential voting system is more fair, transparent and comprehensible than the US system,which appears to be mysterious even to the majority of US citizens.
I would however like to see an extra square added to the ballot paper as a permanent option:
"Tick here if you believe none of the candidates are worth feeding, much less voting for."
This is in fact the strongest argument for pref. voting; for the open minded voter, it's almost always about which candidate we dislike least, rather than the one we like most.
Historically, although the size of the disparity is troubling, I don't think it's quite the end of civilization as we know it. I seem to recall as a child the prevailing wisdom was that if one party held the federal parliament, the other party should rule the (NSW, at least) state.
What is most troubling is that we are offered so little choice in basic ideologies.

Dear sillysally,

I agree that the Scandinavian systems produce fairer outcomes than the US. However, I believe that is not due to the Scandinavian political systems but to an accident of history. Dissenting Protestant religious sects emigrated to the US from England. They created a superheated atmosphere where government tried to regulate morality in such disastrous experiments as Prohibition.The foreign policy is affected by the Christian Zionists who oppose any peace in the Middle East which might interfere with their visions of armageddon. They oppose social programs to relieve suffering as that is interfering with the work of God.

Scandinavia has treated religion much more sensibly. I think that is the explanation for the Scandinavian well being not the difference in political systems.

Dear Grim,

The US voting system varies from state to state. Nevadan ballots have 'none of the above' as an option. If that gets a majority or plurality (I forget which) the parties must designate new candidates.

davidf writes

'They created a superheated atmosphere where government tried to regulate morality in such disastrous experiments as Prohibition '

and now our liberal thinkers have allowed child molestors a field day by feeding them porn, sexualised young children, encouraging a free flow of destructive drugs, increased alcololism among teens, increased suicide rates etc etc congratulations davidf.

Maybe our first people would not be in half the mess they are in if those insisting on prohibition were listened to. Then again why deny the pleasure of a few no matter how perverted if it destroys many (at least that's what the liberal thinkers think).

The recent result in Qld left the population in other states in awe. Yes we agree that we don't have reasonable alternative in any Australian state but as we could see Anna Bligh was probably the only honest and decent politition left in the country and you throught her out. for a West Australian who once lived in Qld i think you made a mistake. but lets face reality when are we going to make these polititians meet a competency requirement. what about issues like Legal integrity & community equity (do the crime pay for the damage or all people are equal and should be treated as such, Not discrimination or reverse discrimination)God someone fix the leadership in Australia before we have a dictatorship.

Here is a link to a similar thread started on 23/03/12 on this forum.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5047

I get the impression that the author see’s merit in a proportional system but still can’t resist tinkering.

Belly – a contributor to the forum said “People given one vote one value will sort out who they want”

I agree with this philosophy, the last thing we need is a whole raft of power seeking parasites fiddling (as they are now) with our vote!

The election was conducted according to the rules. The result was therefore entirely fair and reasonable, and an exemplary demonstration of democracy in action.

Any description of the result as one-sided, or that one Party was "robbed" is therefore completely inadmissible.

It seems to me that the writer has unilaterally decided what a "fair" result should have been, and now wishes to alter the process so that the outcome next time might meet with his approval.

There is, of course, absolutely no guarantee that this will happen.

As runner so perceptively observed, an even bigger disaster than one side having a landslide majority, is where neither side does, and government policy is instead run by a tiny minority bunch of anti-society radicals.

Queensland has to live with the result their voters created. And since the new government is clearly what they want, that is what they should get, and not some pseudo-academic attempt to second-guess voters' intentions.

But as Ludwig articulates, the problem is not with the voting system, which is purely the lipstick that we apply in great big smears on the pig of a system of government that we have, one that barely deserves the label "democratic". It is run by the inmates, for the inmates. Any wishes that the electorate may sporadically express are purely incidental, and have no impact whatsoever on the process.

Sillysally,

'Wouldn't this give us a celebrity-style system like the US? which is more dysfunctional than ours'

That is not so silly Sillysally,

Yep couldn't help myself.

And you further comments are accurate and perceptive. I like your contributions ... sensible.

An excellent post, although I object to this ' if a lot of votes are wasted to minor parties.' They aren't wasted, they are given to those parties, because those people want them. Only proportional representation is fair, as you suggest, and it is not a bad thing for governments to be obliged to convince sceptics of their ideas, rather than be able to just shove them through without debate. The Greens have had a valuable humanising effect on Gillard. Personally, I would like to abolish parties, and elect only true independents who govern by consensus in a parliament. But that ignores the realities of humans most of whom apparently need a dictator.

I agree with the posters who have questioned the author's motives. The Labor party have historically tinkered with the system to suit their own electoral ends. This article appears to be in the vein of some on the left who are trying to find any reason to argue that the result in Queensland had nothing to do with the carbon tax. At best it is an attempt to ignore reality, at worst an attempt to deny it. Not that it bothers me. I hope this state of denial continues so the result can be repeated federally in 18 months time.

(To sidetrack for a moment, I've never bothered to researched it, but the changes to electoral boundaries before the 2007 election seemed quite convenient for Labor as well- a result perhaps of the political demographic in the public service and AEC? Speculation, but it did seem a little convenient, especially as John Howard lost in his own electorate.)

Anyway, something that struck me was Newman's decision to allow the Labor Party full party status, despite not having enough seats to qualify, so it would have access to the funding and resources it requires to act as an opposition. This of course returns the favour given to it by the Labor Party 10 years ago when it found itself in a similar situation. (I don't remember Left-wing figures using the result to complain about the electoral system back then though. I remember it being used as another reason to undermine the legitimacy of the Howard government.) It also shows that both major parties in Australia have a strong commitment to fairness, that they can't simply treat their political opponent with contempt when it is nearly wiped out, and that they understand it is important for demcracy that one party is not unassailable.

And what strikes me about some of the posts here is the rather tired argument that there is no difference between the political parties. It's an argument I almost never hear from fellow conservatives. I think it stems from left leaning people's dissatisfaction with the Labor Party's performance, both in government, opposition, and electorally, than any grounding in reality. The fact is this is the most left wing government we have had since Whitlam. It has taken our industrial relations system back decades, reversing reforms made even by Hawke and Keating. It has introduced overt wealth-redistribution in the Carbon Tax and Mining Tax. It has favoured large-scale government run projects over the more economic private sector, for example the NBN, and it has introduced reams of new regulation over not just the economy, but also aspects of people's day to day lives, which would be best left to ordinary people to decide. The most common background of Labor Mp's is either in a union or as a political staffer. And to top it off, it is attempting to curb the inflence of the loudest voices opposing its policies, with the recomendations of the Finkelstien Report. The argument that there is no difference between the two major political parties simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Finally I think the author gave the game away very early, when as an example of a chaotic PR system, he noted Israel.

OK dozer, so Labor’s done all those things you mention. But what would have the Libs done if they’d been in power over the same period? Entirely different things which would have significantly changed our economic, social and political landscapes for the better? I don’t think so.

If we look back over the last 3 decades or so, we’d really be battling to see much in the way of significant differences between them.

And especially when you look at full spectrum of political possibilities, they are indeed extremely close.

You wrote:

<< The fact is this is the most left wing government we have had since Whitlam. It has taken our industrial relations system back decades, reversing reforms made even by Hawke and Keating. It has introduced overt wealth-redistribution in the Carbon Tax and Mining Tax. >>

This seems to be contradictory. I mean, are you not in favour of better wealth distribution, with more tangible returns from our primary resources going to the average person and a bit less to the big mining companies and their mega-rich moguls?

Ludwig,

As I noted, the Hawke and Keating governments introduced crucial pro-market reforms in the 80s and 90s, continued under Howard and Costello, until many of these were reversed under Rudd and Gillard. In 2007, Rudd campaigned explicitly against Workchoices, and repealled it as soon as it could, and also undid many of the reforms made under Hawke and Keating. In this respect, to say it is the most left wing government since Whitlam, (or as you put it, in three decades,) is not only entirely accurate, it should be obviously so.

With regard to "entirely different things which would have significantly changed our economic, social and political landscapes for the better," here are a few:

The immigation system in place under The Howard government, although strict, allowed the government to increase both our immigration and refugee intake to the highest levels in our history. Labor quickly relaxed the strong border protection that had been in place, refugees resumed risking the dangerous sea voyage to our shores in large numbers, and both the immigrant and refugee numbers dropped;

With regard to the GFC, from which Rudd is often erronously praised for saving us, the experienced Costello would have been far more cautious with stimulus spending and so called nation building projects, and would have avoided falling so deeply into deficit.

One can think back to how the Kennet government payed off the massive state debt in Victoria as well as kickstarting economic growth in Victoria in the 1990s, and how the Howard government payed off the massive debt left to it by Hawke/ Keating.

These are huge differences in policy and results between Liberal and Labor. As I stated, to claim that they're almost indistinguishable does not stand up to scrutiny.

With regard to your quotation of mine being contradictory, as I have shown, the argument that the Rudd/ Gillard government has been more left wing than the Howard, Keating, Hawke, and Fraser governments is entirely factual. And wealth redistribution, in the form of its Carbon and Mining Taxes, is entirely consistent with its left wing economic outlook.

Concerning your argument about the benefits of such (a) tax(es), I differ strongly. It is far more efficient to let individuals and businesses decide directly how to invest the wealth they have worked hard to earn, than for government to distribute other people's money. Individuals and businesses are likely to work harder and take greater risks when they are more directly rewarded for their efforts. They generally have greater expertise and knowledge about where the investment is needed, and are far less likely to waste it when it's their own money. This does not by any means infer that the sick, old and infirm should be left to suffer.

The fact is that the best way to increase the overall wealth of a country is to reduce the penalties for creating it. Economies in the West were rejuvinated when taxes, which had been as high as 90%, were lowered. The Carbon and Mining taxes will reduce the incentives for individuals and businesses to take the chances necessary for a strong economy. It will reduce the overall earnings of the mining companies and thus tax receipts, and reduce the number or jobs directly and indirectly created by mining, reducing tax revenue even further. To assume that it is a simple equation of higher tax equals more money for the government to spread throughout the whole economy is incorrect.

It really astounds me how these discussions get so far off track!

The Author quiet rightly pointed out the fact that our current system does not elect our political representatives in proportion to the way we vote. His supporting discussion remained on subject by exploring a range of different systems and other relevant comments.

There are some excellent comments that are on subject, but sadly most are just white noise. They rabbit (maybe its bunny, this time of year) on about GFC’s, reds, blues, personalities, economics, politicians and yes even the carbon tax, to list a few.

The classic is we'll all be rooned if any of those minorities get their hands on power. The only question I have is which minority is being referred to? The fact is they are all minorities, even the NLP in Queensland fail to achieve a majority.

The fact is our current system is not democratic.

Democratic (adjective) – With equal participation by all -characterized by democracy in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group

Consider how the world might have been different if Al Gore who received the majority of votes was in the White House instead of George W Bush.

Dear Producer, What an excellent summation. Thanks

Thanks for the comprehensive reply dozer. I admire your knowledge of Australian politics.

You wrote:

<< …the Hawke and Keating governments introduced crucial pro-market reforms in the 80s and 90s, continued under Howard and Costello, until many of these were reversed under Rudd and Gillard. >>

Yes, so there are often bigger differences between different governments of the same political brand than there are between Lib and Lab!

<< The immigration system in place under The Howard government, although strict, allowed the government to increase both our immigration and refugee intake to the highest levels in our history. >>

And this basically remained the same under Labor. Indeed, one of the very first things that Rudd did was to further increase immigration.

When you compare the immigration rate under Howard and Rudd/Gillard to the lowest level under Keating, and when you consider the need for us to head towards a sustainable society, which would necessitate a very much lower immigration rate, recent Liberal and Labor policy has indeed been very similar.

I come from a position of desiring a very different government, in the interests of achieving a sustainable society. This requires the abandonment of continuous rapid expansionism. From this perspective, Lib and Lab really are practically identical.

I can see that from your perspective they are quite different. But I’d say that the differences are just not very significant in the bigger picture.

As for the mining tax, and direct government intervention in the interests of better wealth distribution, it seems that we could debate it at length. But another time, as it is moving a bit far from the subject of this thread.

Cheers

My thanks to Davidf and Producer for some interesting leads.
I've discovered thanks to David NOTA (none of the above) parties and movements exist in many parts of the world. Indeed one man in Australia, Geoff Richardson went to the extreme of changing his name to “of the above, none”.
I particularly like the UK version: “No Candidate Deserves My Vote.”
That's the sort of party I would join.
To paraphrase the Great Marx (Groucho): Any party that would have me is no party I would vote for.
It's interesting that people felt a need for such a movement, even in electorates where voting isn't compulsory.
How much more necessary in our system where we are compelled to vote?
The proportional voting system also does seem more fair.

Yes, you're right Producer, it's a good thing that humanity do get a few lucky brakes from time to time.

It is almost enough to make me believe in god, that we were spared that rip off merchant Al Gore.

The US could not have survived even a single term of him, & one of Obama as well.

God must have been in heaven to save the whole planet from Gore, pity he went on holidays & allowed that fool Obama a run with the main team.

Hasbeen,

You appear to have one very warped view of history. For one who supposedly favours sustainability, your inferred support of a war-mongering persuasion in US politics seems far from rational. GW Bush will certainly feature as a prime example of infamy and outright incompetence through one of the saddest episodes in human history.

Producer,

Well done, however you did not address the second post on this thread, by Grim, suggesting that Queensland would be better served with a bicameral parliament - Q being the only unicameral parliament in Aus (having abolished their Upper House in 1922 - according to Wikipedia). This factor alone places Q at risk of a runaway parliament - irrespective of persuasion. Not a good look, and 7 to 1 against (bicameral to unicameral) should indicate something.

Surely the best chance for effective representation is to maintain an Upper House whose members are elected for a term twice the length of the Lower House term, and with half of all Upper House members coming up for re-election midway between each Lower House term?

Jiggling with proportional representation can also only be less effective than a fully compulsory preferential system - with all parties declaring preference distribution beforehand, and with retention of a facility for individuals to allocate all preferences (below the line) if they should so desire. It appears to work well elsewhere in Aus politics, and, although you cannot please all of the people all of the time, excessive tinkering with a fully functional model defies logic. Queensland is simply out of step.

Saltpetre – I am not a fan of a bicameral system although I believe it does serve a purpose, in that by default, does introduce a degree of proportionality to our current federal parliament. I believe government should be as small and frugal as practicable and only deal with those matters that can only be dealt with by government. I don’t want to bunny on and be accused of hypocrisy.

I believe a proportional system such as they have in Germany and NZ that has divisional representation plus a list to ensure proportionality is the best option. I don’t think these systems require an upper house as it is highly unlikely that any single identity would gain a majority. Voters deserve and should get the representatives in the proportions they vote. If they get it wrong they can only blame themselves. This can not be said of the current system!

This may interest ya’all. I made the genuine suggestion that they should consider proportionality on the ALP’s web site “think tank” (I’m not a lefty or a member, or a righty for that matter) under the login name “Producer”. You would never guess, but I am no longer able to log on. Guess it didn’t fit into their propaganda.

Perhaps the ALP would prefer these questions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9myHhpS9s&feature=related

Finally I don’t know whether you wonder as I do, why the media (with the exception of The Canberra Times) doesn’t pick up on the non democratic nature of our current system. Surely Aunty could have Kerry to do a bit on four corners.

Hi ludwig, thanks for your response. a fuller response is coming soon. Just busy atm.

I don't think that it is bad that the number of seats in parliament for the winning party is greater than the proportion of the votes they got. Since the parliamentarians represent their electoral district they reflect the vote in that district. Although I needed voted for nor wanted the LNP they won and should have a chance to govern. Their dominance in parliament means they have the chance to govern. I expect little good from them. However, if I am wrong and they govern well I will support them next election.

The result shows that the discontent with the QLD government was very
widespread. Even if the totals added up are different to the seats
all it shows is that all areas and all socioeconomic areas agree, it
was time for labour to go.

I don't think anyone denies Qld Labor was on the nose. The problem is not being able to form an effective opposition.
I have always maintained John Howard owed a great debt to the Australian Democrats. As soon as their mediating influence -in the upper house- was lost, so was he.
Without an upper house, and with such a crushing majority, Newman is effectively a dictator.
Let's hope he's a benevolent one.
Unless of course you believe we can depend on our 'independent and unbiased media' to keep the bastards honest...

David F, your uncritical belief in the right of 51% of the people to rule over the remaining 49% is misguided. This is a recipe for persecution of minorities. It's not for nothing that we talk about the balance of power. Where there is gross imbalance, as has occurred in Queensland, then the temptation to ride roughshod over the rights of minorities is usually too great to deny.
A secular government that proportionately represents the different aspects of society, will be tolerant, encourage rationality, have fewer health and crime problems among the citizens, and probably last longer than a regime that is, in fact, a dictatorship.
It might help governments to realise their responsibilities if the media said the government is 'in office', rather than 'in power'. Words have a strong influence on perceptions.

Dear ybgirp,

Because I said it is not a bad thing does not mean I have an uncritical belief in the dominance of the majority. I think it would be a good thing if all segments of opinion were represented. I also think it would be a good thing if the government were composed of people who would simply be the most competent and respected in their community to serve as representatives.

Both ideas have been tried and found wanting.

In an effort to be different from England the founders of the United States envisioned a government without political parties. The president of the US according to the original Constitution would be the person who got the most electoral votes while the vice president would be the person with the second number. The result was a president and vice president at odds with each other. The constitution was amended so one votes for the two on the same ticket. One of the flaws of the US Constitution is that it does not provide for political parties in other ways so we have gridlock when the president, congress and supreme court are of different parties.

In an effort to have all political persuasions represented various governments have elected representatives in proportion to their backing in the general population. The result has been horse trading after the election in which coalition governments have been formed. The coalition governments may result in instability such as happened in Italy for years with various short term governments falling until Italy was dominated by the bunga bunga Berlusconi. At the moment Italy has turned over government to an unelected technocrat. In the Weimar Republic the result of the horse trading resulted in Hitler who represented the minority Nazi party. Coalition governments have either resulted in instability or the dominance of a minority.

I am critical of the tyranny of a majority believing in the Thoureauvian idea of a majority of one when a person is more right than others. However, it seems to me that government by a majority is the least bad of the alternatives.

Well put davidf.

Ludwig, thankyou for your reply, sorry for my tardiness.

We are definitely at opposite ends of the spectrum, and I'm sure battles over tax and economic growth will be fought elsewhere. I still don't think that anything you have said negates my argument that this is the most left-wing government we've had since Whitlam. And personally I feel the no-growth argument takes a very negative view of humanity and its potential. I think the sky is the limit for what humans can achieve, and it can be beneficial for the whole planet, but when we start talking about minimizing our impact on the planet we're effectively giving up.

Where I think this is relevant to the discussion at hand is that you argue (here and on other threads,) that because both political parties favour growth, they are effectively the same. I disagree strongly. By this logic, anyone can say that because neither party pays enough attention to the issue they value the most, that both parties are effectively the same, and ignore many profound differences between them.

Then again, because we're coming at this from different angles, I figure I place more weight on the differences and you place less. Just asking, because I am very much a Conservative, are you a Green voter? And if so, do you consider the no-growth vs economic growth thing the main difference between your party and the others?

The Producer,

It is a little lazy to dismiss my comments and my discussion with Ludwig as off topic. The vey first point I made here was essentially that Crispin's article, and the entire thread that followed, is itself, off topic. The Labor party has a history of altering the voting system to benefit itself. It also has a history of complaining about it when it doesn't. The Labor Party is very much reponsible for the voting system which led to its own obliteration in the Queenland election. It is also entirely responsible for its policies which led the people to vote against it. The point I have made is, that as usual, Labor has lost an election, but the last thing it wants to talk about is why. Especially not the carbon tax. What I have noticed on OLO is left wing / Green and Labor people not wanting to talk about the fact that it is their own fault. And it certainly isn't the Carbon Tax. If there was a plethora of articles and discussion threads on OLO attempting to deal honestly with this shortcoming, I would have taken the article at face value. But all I see is more denial. (Then again, if I was smarter, maybe I wouldn't be trying so hard to convince people.)

And you belied the same motives as the author, who chose Israel as the solitary example of a chaotic Proportional Representative system, when you refered to the 2000 US Presedential Election as an example of how the world could have been a better place if your prefered candidate, Al Gore, had been voted in through proportional representation. What about Australia's last Federal election, where the Coalition got more votes, although not a majority? Surely they had a stronger mandate than the Labor Party, just like Al Gore did?

Dozer said;
Labor has lost an election, but the last thing it wants to talk about is why.
>
Actually the reason they do not recognise failure to be their fault is
because ideological driven parties would have to admit that their
principle beliefs are wrong.
To accept that would mean winding up the party.

That is what happened to the communist parties, they woke up one day
and found no one believed in communism.
Because it meant the terror regime also collapsed it all happened in
a few months.

Let’s see if this works?

The original article correctly illustrated that the current preferential system is not democratic. It does not deliver one vote one value. This means that some interests are over represented, others are underrepresented and in some cases delivers no representation to a voter at all.

Irrespective of political bias, the good or bad points of this or any other system, these are facts. The other points and side issues are (as I have referred to in the past) “white noise”. If you can’t recognise and accept this there is no point reading any further!

The current system enables a minority to gain a majority. This is unjust, undemocratic and just plain wrong. Are you still focused?

It is my belief that a system that delivers representation in proportion the collective wishes of all voters is just, democratic and right. This is not to say such systems like any and all other systems, won’t have issues. The difference is that a proportional system is the only one that delivers one vote, one value over the whole electorate! In a nut shell, for better or worse you get what you vote for.

With regard to the current federal house of representatives (or should I say non representatives), a unique situation exists. We have a working minority government (with a minority) that is highly unlikely to get back into office in 18 months time. The likely outcome is a coalition minority government will win a majority of seats, as is the case in Queensland.

If the Gillard government had the balls, with the support of the greens and independents, did the right thing and introduced a democratic proportional system for the next election, they still would get a beating. It would however be unlikely that any one party would get an absolute majority and would have to haggle to form a government.

We would have the first democratic lower house!

Do stop fretting Producer. After the next election, with a result something like Qld, & NSW, the country will have the government that the majority want, & that is democracy. Having some bunch of ratbags using a minor number to control the agenda, as now, is totally wrong.

90% don't want a climate tax, but you think it's democratic that it is forced on us by a minority.

So, after the election, it may take a double dissolution to clear the excess rabble out of the senate, but we have a chance of some sensible government.

When someone over steps the mark, & gets too far ahead of the electorate, we chuck them out, as happened to Howard, when he went too far with industrial relations.

What is wrong is when a minority with an accidental ability to legislate, plans to make bad legislation in a manner to make it hard to rescind. Sound familiar?

Dozer, you wrote;

<< I still don't think that anything you have said negates my argument that this is the most left-wing government we've had since Whitlam. >>

No it doesn’t negate that. But that was never my intention.

Why do you consider left wingedness to be so awful?

The trouble is that the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are so fuzzy and carry quite different connotations for different people.

<< …personally I feel the no-growth argument takes a very negative view of humanity and its potential. >>

My ‘no-growth’ argument is against the continuous rapid expansion of population. It is not against the economic growth that is necessary to provide a high quality of life for a stable population. I’d say that this is just eminently sensible logic which doesn’t limit human potential at all. If we stress out our life-support systems and environment, we’ll be limiting human potential for sure.

<< …because both political parties favour growth, they are effectively the same >>

The continuous growth factor, as opposed to governments steering us towards a sustainable future where demand is in balance with supply capability in a renewable manner, is of vital importance. The fact that neither Lib nor Lab address sustainability and continue to promote totally unsustainable rapid expansionism certainly does indeed render them very much the same, despite whatever differences they might have.

Thus is the overriding importance of sustainability.

But they are extremely similar in so many other ways as well. You have pointed out examples where one government introduces something and the following government which is of the other persuasion continues on with it, and that governments often reverse policies of earlier governments of the same persuasion.

When you look at the history of all of that sort of stuff, there’s not a lot of difference between them.

But I can understand your different perspective.

continued

<< …are you a Green voter? >>

No dozer. The Greens are too redneck for me!

I used to vote Green. I used to be a member. I was a state candidate in 1995. But I consider them to be really poor on the biggest green issue of all – sustainability and continuous growth. In this regard, they are just like Lib and Lab!

<< do you consider the no-growth vs economic growth thing the main difference between your party and the others? >>

Yes I consider the sustainability vs antisustainability thing to be the big difference between my party and the others. This is my party: http://www.populationparty.org.au/

I think I'm repeating myself. Producer, your most recent post is bang on target. Excellent. Ludwig, Yours is even more on target. Sustainability is the only issue now that counts. However, no country on the planet is taking it seriously, or even seriously considering it, so while I support your party, I accept that, historically, the only force for change of human behaviour is total disaster in the form of violent revolution, and that only happens when life becomes totally intolerable for the majority of the people. That gives us about twenty more years and then, I hope, I'll be dead and avoid the horrors.

Producer said;
This means that some interests are over represented, others are
underrepresented and in some cases delivers no representation to a voter at all.
>

Producer does not understand how the parliamentary system works.
Just because the candidate that you voted for does not get elected does
not mean you have no representation.
Some years ago I went to the local member who I did not vote for with a
problem and he fixed it.
He did not know whether I voted for him or not.

So your assertion that you are not represented is false.

ybgirp

'That gives us about twenty more years and then, I hope, I'll be dead and avoid the horrors.'

We were taught the same dire prediticions by the socialist in the 70's. Just happens that far more people are heaps better off than then. Now that the climate scandal is known by all except the gullibe (before it was global cooling, the hole in the ozone layer and sheep letting off) a new over population mantra is needed.

runner,

It's from your myopic perspective that you judge the planets ability to withstand a constant and unsustainable human onslaught. Have a gander at this:
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

One of the reasons that the people around you are "heaps better off" is that we access most of our cheap goodies from China. China has a vast population and has become an economic powerhouse from it's ability to give us what we demand with little thought to sustainable practice. Nice for us, of course, but, as you can see, not so nice for the environment.

We're a paradoxical species, still overwhelmingly led by the nose by our instincts to consume first and think later.

Poirot, those photos are indeed shocking.
I think about the only solution will be the end of globalisation.
That will kill off the massive Chinese export trade and turn them back
towards a more sustainable lifestyle.

Globalisation is slowly ending and will accelerate as energy gets more
expensive and with restricted supply.
That problem has already started in China with very significant
shortage of diesal and that has caused shortages of coal which has
resulted in widespread blackouts in Eastern China.

Bazz – You can’t base a system on your positive experience at division level. It may be the case that someone else has had a negative experience with a similar scenario. Any system including proportional representation will have positive and negative outcomes at all levels. Your comment is focused on a division not the whole electorate. It relates to an outcome of an issue, not the issue of proportional representation.

I also said - “The difference is that a proportional system is the only one that delivers one vote, one value over the WHOLE electorate!”

I do understand that – The current preferential system is not democratic. It does not deliver one vote one value. This means that some interests are over represented, others are underrepresented and in some cases delivers no representation to a voter at all.

Perhaps it is you that does not understand how the parliamentary system works?

Runner>>'Just happens that far more people are heaps better off than then.'
And multiple heaps more are far worse off than ever before. The wealth gap is becoming a chasm. The most productive agricultural land in already poverty stricken parts of Africa and South America has been taken over by Europeans and China and India to provide food for their people, leaving the locals better off do you think?
Ah, Poirot, Such images. Perhaps instead of long segments about what's happening in the USA on our News bulletins, a few clips like this might do some good.
But, we're off topic again, apologies, Producer.