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?