This is a response to Edward Carson’s partisan and rather childish contribution.

I was not on the losing side in 1975. I joined the Liberal Party in December 1975. It took over 9 months for the significance of what had happened to dawn on me, and change my mind. See the Background tab at www.advancingdemocracy.info for details on how to rise above partisan positions by focusing on principles.

Removing a Government to force an election is undemocratic in two respects. Firstly, and most importantly, it deprives those who voted for the Government of their right to the full value of their vote. The House is elected for 3 years. Those who voted Labor in 1972 and 1974 only received half that allotted time. Can anyone really suggest the game is fair when if I win I get 3 years, whereas if you win you get only 18 months, or such other lesser period that I, the loser, determines? Elections can also be undemocratic when both sides are not playing on a level field. This occurs when one side is taken by surprise and is not prepared for an election. This is why many jurisdictions moved towards fixed elections - to stop Governments calling early, unexpected elections. The Senate and Governor-General combine to take advantage of a Government’s present unpopularity is a different manifestation of the same unfairness.

I’ll stop there as watching the cricket is more important than responding to the remaining trivia.

Dis, Plerdus is quite right. As the LAST senators elected would have filled the casual vacancies, it is entirely plausible that these would have been Labor candidates. Suggest it is inadvisable to critique posts unless sure of fully comprehending them.

“Can anyone really suggest the –game- is fair when if I win I get 3 years, whereas if you win you get only 18 months,” (emphasis added)
Bit of a Freudian slip there Philip. ‘Ya see, ya compete in this election game and the one who is best at looking good and being popular wins the grand prize of, wait for it, three years of government perks and power!’

Democratically speaking, elections should not be prize winning games. They should be instead, job applications, where the successful candidate is bestowed with the honour and responsibility of representing a group of people, not bestowed with the prize of three years of power. And those who realise the wind had changed, that they are no longer wanted as representatives, should have the dignity to go quietly, rather than being dragged out kicking and screaming complaining that they have not yet enjoyed their entire prize.

Philip, if you’re all into ‘advancing democracy’ you should have heard of the 19th century British pro democracy movement, Chartism. So tell me what and why was number #6 of their People’s Charter of 1938.

That should be People's Charter of 1838.

May I repeat the main point which some of our posters seem to have forgotten. A half Senate election was simply not possible if four State Premiers had already declared that they would not advise their Governors to issue the writs.