The Forum > Article Comments > Democratic dysfunction in thumping Queensland result > Comments
Democratic dysfunction in thumping Queensland result : Comments
By Crispin Hull, published 2/4/2012Labor in Queensland was robbed.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
-
- All
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.
Posted by wanderer-001, Monday, 2 April 2012 5:01:53 PM
| |
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! Posted by Producer, Monday, 2 April 2012 6:02:05 PM
| |
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. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 2 April 2012 6:46:48 PM
| |
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. Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 2 April 2012 8:25:40 PM
| |
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.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 8:30:46 AM
| |
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. Posted by dozer, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:37:37 AM
|