The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Two-party tyranny > Comments

Two-party tyranny : Comments

By Klaas Woldring, published 29/8/2006

Proportional representation - a necessary reform whose time has come.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Vote 1 for PR!
Posted by hadz, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 10:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst Australia’s standard of governance may be high by relative standards it is evolving in a disturbing manner that should be modified by some system adjustments.

The political cycle caused by general elections is the great corrupting influence in all matters political.

Corruption is due to the winner take all results creating huge disruptions in the players’ careers and in the morale of their supporters. Every 3 or 4 years everything is on the line. The longer the term of parliament the worse is the effect. Whilst this is great for accountability once in the cycle much else is abandoned in our ancient but inherited Westminster system. It works, but could we not devise a more appropriate system for modern Australia?

Matters affected include everything from fiscal management, pork-barreling in marginal electorates and to vital longer term planning – environmental, infrastructure, educational and the economic impacts of demographic changes. For example, it is generally considered that the last budget before an election must be particularly generous. The importance of lifting the horizon for politicians from the next election to longer term issues is imperative if many of the most important issues (global warming!!) of today are to receive their appropriate attention.

Consider instead if there were NO general elections but rather 1 in 16 of the seats were re-contested every 3 months. That is, on say the second Saturday of each and every February, May, August and November approximately 9 seats Australia wide were contested with the successful candidates holding the seat for the next 4 years. If the contested seats were evenly spread throughout the states and the regions even supposedly safe seats may be fiercely contested. The result would be a constantly renewed legislature. A significant poll of the electorate would occur every 3 months. Whilst this may inhibit action when the numbers are close the loss of the treasury benches for a year would not be as crippling or corrupting as the contemplation of the loss of power for a full term.
Posted by Gnudwoch, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 1:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have never voted for a candidate, its been for a party, where I have some idea of its policy, in all areas. Thats impossible with individual candidates.
Thank our lucky stars we finally hav one party in power, in both houses, federally. For far too long we have had minor parties dictating policy. For 3% of the population to hold that power is ridicules.
I realy don't care which party is in power, most of the time, but I do want them to be able to implement their pollicies, completely.
Once you have these special interest groups with the whip hand, you get a bl**dy camel. You know, designed by a comity.
The experience I have had with these people has convinced me, that, in the real world, they have no idea of which way is up.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 2:59:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Klass Woldring “Proportional representation (PR) is a highly democratic representative system,”

No it is not. Proportional Repesentation erodes the fundamental relatioiship between a representative and their electorate.

Under any system of proportional representation, the elector is not voting for someone, they are voting for a collection of people nominated to stand by another group of people.

Under direct election, fist past the post, an individual stands. He or she might be affiliated to some larger group but he might also be an independent (oh memories of thew UK's Screaming Lord Sutch of the famous “Monster Looney Party”).

Ultimately, this world is populated by individuals, loosely collected into classes, cultures, ethnic groups, subgroups and nations.

Whilst the world is populated by individuals, we are better off electing individuals to represent us at local, state or national level. Proportional representation destroys the accountability of the directly elected representative to their electorate and threatens the monopoly authority of a two party system more than any other system.

My personal opinion, we would be better off without the shifty second preference deals and the bastardization of the election of Federal Senators by bring accountability and responsibility of representatives back to basics and reverting to the good old fashioned, easy to understand, no ambiguity first-past-the-post elections for everything.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 7:17:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is unlikely we will change the current system but perhaps there are other "electoral" ways of achieving a similar result. The objective is to give "the people" more control over who makes decisions on their behalf. Electoral democracy is about "the people" giving the right to control to their representatives.

Many of our important institutions are governed and controlled by organisations outside the parliaments. They may be ultimately responsible to the government of the day but they act independently and make decisions in their own areas. The Reserve Bank, the ABC, the High Court are important examples.

At present governing board members of these institutions and hundreds more like them are appointed by the government of the day when vacancies arise.

Why not give the people voting rights to appoint at least some of these people through proportional representation. For example, let half the board members of the ABC be appointed by popular vote every four years in a single seat electorate where the electors are those people who can be bothered to register.

Such a scheme would be relatively cheap to implement with modern communications technology and with appropriate imagination could even be income generating (think of the advertising potential for fast food on ballot emails:)

What this would do would be to give people more control over many functions in society. It could be achieved incrementally and tested out with a few institutions to see the effect. As the governments of the day could still have reserve powers to dismiss whole boards or individuals on boards it would take the odium out of the problems governments have of appointing people who turn out to be unsuitable - such as reserve bank governors with taxation problems.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 6:53:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Until voting is voluntary there will never be any genuine & fair electoral reform .
Why would anyone rock a comfortable boat ?
One statement that’s frequently used to support compulsory suffrage is that it provides stable governance .
A deceitfully true statement . The question is , Stability for whom ? My guess would be the major parties & very few others .
All things being equal it shouldn’t matter , The problem is it does now .
The current PM has talked of the importance of ‘mateship’ from time to time & he’s right as that’s exactly what we’ve lost .
A great deal of change has been imposed on Australian life over the last fifteen years or so . One aspect is that much of this change has not initially been at the request of the Australian public but rather to fulfill commitments to implement grand utopian ideals cobbled together at international feelgood forums .
While these grand policies may be based on good intentions the apparent method of gaining public support for their implementation has divided our nation down many lines .
That method seems to be , Frighten the mob by stating that a terrible problem exists , Identify a subset of the community as the offenders , Announce a raft of punishing regulatory ‘solutions’ , Claim glory as fixers of all problems great & small to the applause of the grateful mob . Sound familiar ?
An equally cheap theory is that if both sides of a debate are unhappy then balance is achieved .
The result is much resentment between people .
Now the only way to encourage our political parties to exercise restraint & endeavor to always find loserless outcomes is to have an electoral process that will punish arrogance & disregard .
Voluntary voting is the only way as a cash bribe & a bunch of flowers wouldn’t motivate participation nearly so well as rage would .
Posted by jamo, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 10:05:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No doubt the present system disadvantages small parties which stand on narrow special interest platforms, but this is a good thing. The minor or ‘would be’ parties are usually special interest groups or groups driven by a particular ideology.

Special interest groups lack the comprehensive policy platforms required to govern a nation, and
Ideological parties, including religious parties, rarely have the stomach for compromise which democracy demands. Whatever the ideology, unless a party respects the diverse ideologies it hopes to represent, and compromises its own accordingly, it has no business in our democratic system. It would be better for good government if such groups pressed their objectives through lobbying instead of parliamentary representation leaving them making decisions on issues for which they were not elected.

Many who think otherwise are assuming the absence of a party which closely reflects their own outlook, indicates there isn’t sufficient choice, but democracy is fundamentally about compromise - no individual voter ever gets what he wants because politicians make decisions which are a compromise of many conflicting voter wants. The two party system produces parties which already reflect a compromise on the diverse outlooks of the voters. The proposed PR system might well allow each outlook to be better represented, but this is just deferring the necessary compromises to the parliamentary floor making it even less efficient that in is at present. Contrary to the author’s observation that a PR system causes no problems in many European countries, it actually causes great instability and regular deadlocks.

The dominance of the two parties and their similarity, far from being a sign of the failure of our system, is evidence our system consistently produces moderate governments which reflect a compromise between all the conflicting views of the voters. Nobody is ever completely happy, but at least the politicians in the major parties are aiming to keep 51% satisfied – more than can be said for special interest groups or ideologues
Posted by Kalin, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 12:21:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And again

Kalin so by your measure it’s ok for the state to persecute & rob people so long as 51% are kept happy .

Mate when you’ve had much of the value of your hard earned assets stripped by a government seeking to sure up a few seats in an upcoming election you’ll understand what being part of the 49% is .
Posted by jamo, Thursday, 31 August 2006 7:53:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jamo,

I hear you, but the problem you raise has virtually nothing to do with the electoral system – PR or any other electoral system - it’s a fundamental flaw with Democracy – the 51% (or those elected by them) CAN bully the remaining 49%. This is the tyranny of Democracy, a good early example being the persecution of Socrates for displeasing the majority under the democracy of ancient Greece.

Modern democracies do better than the ancient Greeks by embracing the ideals of Liberalism which is the idea that the state, even with the blessing of the majority, ought not interfere with individuals in certain spheres and ways. The tricky bit is in agreeing in what ways and spheres governments should and shouldn’t be able to interfere with individuals. The US Bill of rights is one example of how liberalism has been implemented in the US. Our constitution offers no absolute protections and instead relies on the traditions of the Westminster system and the common law, which recognise most of the rights enshrined in the US system, but follow them more ‘flexibly.’

Unfortunately, however you try to limit the role of government so that the 51% cannot unfairly or unreasonably impose themselves on the 49%, the protections are never complete and some unfairness will prevail.

To get back on point, a PR system might give you a candidate that can moan and cry about those policies/taxes/laws which are unreasonably targeting you, but if the other elected candidates are unaffected he’ll likely be ignored by the other elected candidate in the same way those who voted him in were ignored by their fellow voters.

The short of it is, democracy is a compromise and therefore, by definition, not ideal. Even so, democracy is still better than other systems, where invariably, the powers that be only have to please a much smaller interest group, usually those with guns.

As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all the others.”
Posted by Kalin, Thursday, 31 August 2006 12:02:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder what the likes of Woldring would say to those One Nation voters who had their one million votes (or 10%) ripped from them in rubbish preference deals.

Not only is it ironic that much of what Hanson said is unfolding before our eyes, with race riots, people wanting to blow us up & remove our democratic values by replacing them with the barbaric Sharia code, but I doubt if those peddling this idea agree that they, who the leftist elites considered rednecks for legitimate concerns about areas such as Cabramatta, the heroin capital of Australia, should be proportionally represented.

What of the European nations, with their rapidly increasing Muslim, pro-Sharia, populations?

68% of Muslims in Britain want Sharia, with about 30% believing the London attacks were justified, and more still that don't believe in democratic values.

Should they be represented? Should NAZI's be represented?

This might work with European cultures, which are enlightened, but for those that vote in accordance with their ethnicity, it could never work.

Iraq a good example. Shiites vote for Shiite party's, and Sunni's blow them up. No, this idea is preposterous in the real world because 90% of the world's cultures are barbaric, racist, tribal.

Even in Australia it couldn't work. We'd have Muslims want their barbaric Sharia, where women are worth half of men in Islamic courts, to be instigated here.

This goes against everything we believe in.

Again, it could only work with enlightened cultures.
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 4 September 2006 11:54:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin, do you not sense the exquisite irony in being apparently conservative and yet accusing the "left" (whatever that means nowadays — apparently anyone who doesn't agree with the current regime) of being Nazis.

Right ...
Posted by stickman67, Monday, 4 September 2006 8:57:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issue is more complicated than PR good versus single member electorates bad.

PR is not representative with list system elected MPs. Lists reward party hacks who represent noone except themselves or faction. NZ electors are cynical about list MPs because of their unrepresentativeness.

The NZ system is doubly cynical as politicians get another go - run in a single member seat and lose, still be on the list i.e. NZ First leader Winston Peters.

The 1999 ''tablecloth'' election was no democratic victory . Preference harvesting by microparties and 0.13% for election is anarchy or the Keating line - unrepresentative swill.

Electorate based PR is more effective as an MP can be representative. Tasmania works becasue of small electorates, rotation of candidate names, no preferences on HTV cards. MPs have to work hard and theoretically no safe seats. Until the Greens, there were few independents or minor party MPs in Tasmania.

Electorate based PR can be subverted - the Victorian ALP dumping city MPs into country electorates under the reformed Upper House.

The attraction of single member electorates is MPs are directly answerable to their electors. If they don't please, they are unemployed. Party leaders can lose (and have done). Better to concentrate on marginal seats than on the shifting 0.5% in a PR list system.

Single electorate systems are stable - the elected dictatorship - rather than shifting sands of unstable coalitions (look at NZ for strange bedfellows!).

The Australian preferential system makes votes work. In UK and NZ with multi party single member parliaments elected on first past the post where disenchantment has set in - UK in 1983,1980/90S NZ i. In both there was no check - Tory controlled Lords and no NZ upper house.

Single member MPs can represent voters if conscience voting, occasionally seen in the Liberals but not the Pledge bound ALP. If the ALP abandoned the pledge ... !!

PR is not the panacea to democracy and representation, possibly the opposite because of removed responsibilities cynicism engendered.
Posted by blackburnian, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 11:27:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stickman, can you point out one thing I have said that is wrong?

Of course not! You leftist types are all the same, slogans & personal insults because you have no arguments.

The irony is that what Wolddring is asking for, namely, proportional representation, could never happen as you leftist types wouldn't allow it, as you didn't with Hanson.

Nazi's? Well, those who espouse totalitarian ideologies, don't allow others to have different views (by labelling them racists when in effect leftists truly are bigots, those who believe in cultural relativism are simply weak people who can't tell the "ethnic other" off for mutilating his daughters genitals for example.

One day, leftists will be known as the bigots they are, who view non-whites as lesser beings. Don't you think it's bizarre that feminists ignore Muslim womens groups who say that Islam oppresses them?

Again, point out where I'm wrong, don't be a slogan.
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 4:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have read 13 comments with interest. A rejoinder to some of them follows - soread over two posts. (Klaas Woldring)

Gnudwoch proposes a different type of remedy to current problems but it is still based on the single-member district system under which either a very minority is not reprented or, in many instances, even a majority is not represented because both major parties often rely on preferences of minor parties and independents to get over 50%. PR overcomes this problem.

Hasbeen opposes a Parliament of Independents. Proportional Representation actually encourages the formation of a plurality of parties which actually removes the need for Independents. In the over 25 PR systems I mentioned there are hardly Independents. Hasbeen also criticised the small vote for the minor parties. In my article I explain why minor parties are minor parties.

Col Rouge suggests that "PR erodes the fundamental relationship between a representative and their electorate" and this, in his view, is undemocratic.
Well Col, as explained above with the single-member district system only a minority of voters are in fact represented by their first choice candidate. The idea that the MP represents the entire electorate is a myth of course. I live in the federal electorate of Robertson where Jim Lloyd is the Liberal MP. I do not find that Mr. Lloyd represents me in any meaningul fashion.

The first -past-the post system suffers even more from this problem in that there are no second preferences to be distributed. The preferential system should not be confused with Proportional Represention though.

Kalin states that small parties stand for special interest platforms. Many have a broad platform though, eg. the Australian Democrats, the Greens, earlier the Australia Party, the DLP. Most parties in countries which operate with a PR electoral system have far-ranging platforms. The advantage is that the diversity of views is reflected in Parliament, in an independent and open fashion. Not behind closed doors as with the major parties, which are essentially dominated by powerful executives. I much prefer to have these diversities have independent voices and standing in the Legislature
Posted by klaas, Monday, 18 September 2006 3:10:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Second post in reply.

Benjamin is wondering what I would say if One Nation received 10% of the seats based on 10% of the vote. I would say that is democracy at work! That is where they deserve(d) to be heard. Benjamin also underestimates the capacity of Australians to deal with potentially difficult minorities. He seems to think that this can only de done in Europe. It was actually the Tasmanian Chief Justic Inglis Clarke who was the co-inventor of what became known as the Hare-Clarke system of PR!!
More than 100 years ago.

Blackburnian is concerned about the PR list system. Most European systems are list systems. In NZ a mix of Local MP's and List MPs, that is a mix of the old system and PR, was introduced. Critics have opposed that for a variety of reasons the major one probably being that the list MPs would be regarded as second class MPs. This has not happened. Result has been much greater diversity of representation in the Parliament.

Finally, there was some support for voluntary voting. I am all for that because it would reduce the total votes for the major parties but not for the minor parties. Thus the chances of system change would increase. For the opposite reason the major parties are not interested in that. Another reform ssuggested was that voters need to be involved in voting senior executives in for key agencies, such as the ABC, the Reserve Bank and many others. Full marks. The stacking of a whole range of senior public board with cronies of the PM is a disgrace but this importance channel of influence it is open to both major parties and the public have to suffer this addition extension of power. It greatly detracts from a socalled democratic system that isn't democratic by any reasonable standard.
Posted by klaas, Monday, 18 September 2006 3:17:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy