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.