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/