Perhaps so!
But it seems to me that these three related references provide a profound critique of the one-dimensional world view that Bob Day promotes via his association with the heartless hollow men, with their heads stuffed full of straw, that infest the IPA and similar right wing propaganda outfits.
References which describe the profoundly negative anti-Spiritual nature of our so called culture.
http://www.coteda.com/fundamentals/index.html
http://www.dabase.org/p8realpolitik.htm
http://www.beezone.com/news.html

Dear Daffy Duck,

Great alliteration! You don't seem daffy to me.

Your article misses so much it is hard to know where to start. FF is an unashamedly Christian party with candidates all active Christians in churches. This will of necessity limit its appeal to the mass of voters. It is the single brake on its growth and seeing how most candidates for the lower house are almost anyone who will stand that is not likely to change.

IM not saying that a Christian part is a bad idea but the idea that it will be a dominant force or a replacement for major parties is quite simply, the stuff of fantasy.

Bob Day may be slightly better than the rest (in fact I think he is), but even the best of politicians is still a politician and they should all be erased off the face of the earth.

Forget about this silly 19th-century divide between 'Left' and 'Right': If Bob and his party want my vote, all he needs is to allow me to ride a bicycle (without wearing a pot over my head) - In the next federal elections I will vote for whatever party that promises to stop interfering with this freedom of mine (and if there's more than one such party then I'll preference all those who will allow me to ride a bicycle above all others).

Altogether a near-perfect analysis of how completely dysfunctional our Senate has become, when the manoeuverings and machinations of irrelevant groupuscules become significant factors in the government of our country.

It is indeed a race to the bottom, when the political flatulence of a tiny minority needs to be considered each time any legislation is contemplated.

We are rapidly becoming incapable of rejecting the bribery and blackmail - both financial and emotional - that allows these "parties" to have an impact in the first place.

Shame on us.

Should known religious parties be barred
from standing for parliament and the senate.

What happened to the idea of secular government?

This kind of party could just as easily be a hindu
or a muslim or mormon group. do we really want religious
fundamentalists of any kind holding
the balance of power in the government.

It is not good enough to ban priests the law should also
cover known religious parties like family first.

Control of the Senate is one of the more interesting aspects of any federal election. If you’re not a fan of Labor or Liberal (and that is a fair chunk of the Australian population,) then it is the only thing that might get you motivated in turning up at all (other than avoiding the fine for not voting.)

Control of the Senate is one of the more democratic aspects of Australian politics. It’s one of the few times the little guy gets to have a say.

Dear Dan,

I agree with you. In England the House of Lords is to a degree representative of the aristocracy. In Australia the Senate gives those who do not support the major parties a voice.

I don't disagree with the principle, Dan S de Merengue. Just the outcome.

>>If you’re not a fan of Labor or Liberal (and that is a fair chunk of the Australian population,) then it is the only thing that might get you motivated in turning up at all... Control of the Senate is one of the more democratic aspects of Australian politics. It’s one of the few times the little guy gets to have a say.<<

The result, of course, being that the "little guy" vote turns into a controlling vote. In other words, the will of the vast majority is ignored, in favour of a random individual or party that has managed to manipulate (read: rort) the system to their own advantage.

How, in anyone's lexicon, does rule by a tiny minority constitute "one of the more democratic aspects of Australian politics"? In my view, that definition is identical to that which can be applied to a military dictatorship. Ergo, it can only be viewed as one of the least democratic aspects of our political process.

Pericles,

The minor parties and independents can do nothing, even if they all vote in the same way, unless one of the major parties is prepared to vote with them. Why do you criticise the minor parties and not the major parties that, in your view, must be ignoring the wider public interest to differentiate their product? Is this good evidence of their superiority?

Dear Pericles,

Do you wish to rob the poor man's lamb?

The two dinosaur parties already enjoy the most unfair electoral system which eternalise their unjust power over ordinary people.

Having only minute and insignificant differences between them, they play the adversarial game in parliament, receiving fat salary-packages to verbally abuse each other during the day in public, then at night, in private, they drink together at the bar, laughing their guts out how they, playing the good-cop and the bad-cop have tricked us once again and squeezed the life out of us.

With no hope to ever change things in the lower house, we, ordinary people can at least have a small chance to be able to defend ourselves through the upper house by blocking legislation that would otherwise chip away our individual freedoms even further.

And you want to take that away too?

Divergence,
Thanks for attempting to explain the maths to Pericles. 

Pericles, the 'tiny minority' never gets a law passed in parliament. Laws are always passed by a majority vote.

A substantial chunk, something approaching 20% (I don't have the exact current figure in front of me) of Australians are inclined to vote for someone other than those of the two major parties. This percentage has a more reasonable representation in the Senate than in the lower house.

Actualy, I don't, Divergence.

>>Why do you criticise the minor parties and not the major parties that, in your view, must be ignoring the wider public interest to differentiate their product? Is this good evidence of their superiority?<<

If you look really, really closely, I did not "criticise the minor parties". Instead, I simply pointed out that the system that allows them to dictate policy is inherently undemocratic.

I'm very happy for you to disagree with something I have said. But it is a little nonsensical when you decide first what it is you wish to disagree with, then attribute it to me.

Dan S de Merengue:

>>Pericles, the 'tiny minority' never gets a law passed in parliament. Laws are always passed by a majority vote.<<

Three words: balance of power.

The classic of its kind was the interference of Meg Lees in the perversion of the GST implementation, which ended up being a horse-designed-by-committee, and has been operating sub-optimally ever since.

Neither of the mainstream parties was given a mandate for that abortion of a law.

Ummmm.... actually, that should have read actually...

Dear Pericles,

The adoption of the GST was done in an undemocratic way. Meg Lees did not consult the membership of the Democrats when she supported the GST. Many of them including me were outraged at her support of it. Apparently she was sweet talked into it by John Howard.

The Catholic bishops were expected to write a pastoral letter condemning the tax as it was a regressive tax which fell most heavily on the poor. Howard announced a $400,000,000 increase in aid to Catholic schools, and the pastoral letter never came out.

However, the above is not a criticism of the senate as a house of review. The first paragraph points out the undemocratic nature of our political parties where members of parliament can disregard the wishes of their constituents. The second paragraph points out the desirability of the separation of church and state. Where the church gets favours from the state it is no longer free to criticise the state. Schools set up to indoctrinate religion should not be funded by the general taxpayer. They should be funded by the parents and the particular religious body. Only public schools should be funded by the state.

I left the Democrats at that time as a result of Meg Lees action. If a referendum had been made among the party members before her support for the GST and such a referendum had supported her act I probably would not have left the party.

Pericles,
I think I can see your point. But given that in federal elections, it's rare for any governing party to have obtained more than 50% of the vote in either house, how would you define 'mandate'? That some laws may have to be discussed and maybe compromised to get passed is a sign of democracy at work.

I'm not convinced you can describe compromise as an acceptable aspect of democracy, Dan S de Merengue.

>>That some laws may have to be discussed and maybe compromised to get passed is a sign of democracy at work.<<

Compromise is surely the antithesis of the democratically expressed will of the people. When all but a tiny handful can truthfully stand up and say "actually, that is not what I voted for", surely there is something seriously amiss?

david f's story is, sadly, typical. His vote went unrecognized by his Party, courtesy of its leader's vanity. Labor voters' voice was ignored, because they were not in power. And Howard ended up with a tax that, instead of replacing a myriad of other, mostly anti-business taxes, was a profoundly flawed mishmash of ideas that were never put to the electorate at all.

At best, compromise represents an acceptable middle ground. Once in the hands of politicians, however, it becomes nothing more than a bargaining tool in the hands of unscrupulous powertrippers. Little more than blackmail, in the final analysis.

Dear Pericles,

Democracy is more than the simple will of the majority. A dictatorship may be based on the will of the majority if the majority supports the dictator. Democracy, IMHO, includes the concept of human rights to which humans are entitled whether or not they are in the majority. This implies that the majority rights are limited. They do not have the right to deprive a minority of liberty or enslave a minority.

A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny. The compromise that takes place in parliament can be a matter of modifying legislation so that minority objections are taken into account.

Sometimes there is no majority opinion on an issue that should be addressed. Without compromise it will not be addressed. At this time a majority voted for the Democrats in the US. However, due to gerrymandering the US House of Representatives is controlled by an intransigent Republic minority. They have an almost total opposition to confirming the president's appointees. Therefore judiciary and other offices that should be filled are vacant.

Compromise is necessary for the workings of democracy. Where various factions are so at odds that compromise is impossible the country suffers.

You are missing the point, davidf.

>>Compromise is necessary for the workings of democracy.<<

I have absolutely no quarrel with that statement. As I said before:

>>At best, compromise represents an acceptable middle ground.<<

What is under discussion here is the impact that individuals who are massively under-represented in terms of the will of the people, have on the outcome of legislation that affects the vast proportion of the electorate who didn't vote for them.

How is that in any way "democratic"?

Dear Pericles,

The representatives of the small parties can only have any influence if they ally themselves on a particular issue with representatives of a larger party. It would be undemocratic if they could operate without allies. However,they don't. They represent those individuals who feel that the major parties do not represent them. I don't know what could be more democratic.

If only that were so, david f

>>The representatives of the small parties can only have any influence if they ally themselves on a particular issue with representatives of a larger party.<<

What they do in real life is to insert their own agendas into the legislation, and withhold their support until their parochial, small-minded, unrepresentative demands are met.

Dear Pericles,

If a major party has a majority it can pass what it wants regardless of what the small parties want. Your adjectives, parochial and small-minded, may apply to any opinion. In my view since corporate contributions flow to the major parties more than to the minor parties a small party may be less parochial and small-minded than a major party which is indebted to its contributors. I belong to the Greens precisely because they are generally less parochial and small-minded than either the Libs or Labor. We get few corporate contributions and are more interested in preserving our environment and in social justice than the major parties. We have not engaged in scare tactics about the boat people like Libs and Labor but want them treated decently.

Dear Pericles,

In general the party discipline of the major parties requires the members to vote as the party room tells them. If they don't they may be disendorsed. They must ignore the promptings of conscience, the wishes of constituents and the good of Australia and the world if it conflicts with the dictates of the party room. I regard that as small-minded and parochial.

Obviously Bob Day's work on Affordable housing goes missing amongst the progressive Labor left, as usual. The light on the hill is out of sight.