.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« 4 : I did so under duress, because otherwise I could be kicked out of my new home and thrown back to where I escaped from.»
.

Whether it be under duress or at your own initiative, I’m sure you made the right choice, Yuyutsu. There are many countries in the world whose political regimes are more restrictive than Australian democracy.

Australia is also a multicultural country, and it is difficult to satisfy everybody, but we do our best, and we count on the comprehension and tolerance of everybody, whatever their culture and origin, in order to maintain a safe, peaceful and harmonious environment for all to share.
.

« 5 : Though majority-rule seems nicer than minority-rule, "majority" means nothing when it is the majority of an imposed arbitrary cohort one never freely chose to associate themselves with. »
.

In a democratic election, the vote of each individual has exactly the same value as the vote of every other individual. Nobody has an advantage or privilege over anybody else, no matter who they are or what they represent, whether they are the garbage man or the multibillionaire.

When all the votes are counted, the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes is elected. The garbage man may have voted for the candidate who was elected, and the multibillionaire may have voted for one of the other candidates who was not elected.

The candidate who was elected may be a member of the party that obtained the greatest number of elected candidates, or he may not. Perhaps he may be a member of a party that obtained only a small number of elected candidates.

The party that obtains the greatest number of elected candidates, together with its allied parties, if it has any, becomes the “ruling majority”. All the other parties become the parliamentary “opposition”.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

That is the result of the vote of the people in a democracy. And that is what we value and respect when we accept to be ruled by a democracy rather than be ruled by some other form of government.

The opposition has an important role to play not only in questioning and criticising the politics of the ruling majority but also in proactively proposing alternative solutions to problems.

It is wrong to say that : “majority means nothing when it is the majority of an imposed arbitrary cohort one never freely chose to associate themselves with”. There is no such thing as “an imposed arbitrary cohort” in a freely elected, democratic majority.

As has often been said, the value of a democracy depends on how it protects and respects the rights of minorities – both cultural (including religious) and political.

Only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.
.

And, as a final remark, please be assured, Yuyutsu, that my sole intent, right throughout this discussion, has always been to respond to your remarks on the subject in hand, to the best of my ability.

.

Dear Banjo,

I am glad to have this discussion back on topic.

«Whether it be under duress or at your own initiative, I’m sure you made the right choice,»

I fully agree.

«There are many countries in the world whose political regimes are more restrictive than Australian democracy.»

I also agree, even while Australia is a democracy in name only.
There could be lots of worse things than not having a democracy.

«Australia is also a multicultural country,»

All well and good. It makes me happy, I am not complaining, just stating a trivial fact, that Australia is not a democracy. No big deal, it could have been much worse.

«In a democratic election, the vote of each individual has exactly the same value as the vote of every other individual.»

Well, every ELIGIBLE individual.
But then there are trillions upon trillions of individuals who do not get to vote, such as children, long-term prisoners, animals, and humans living in other countries, likely ex-terrestrials too.
I am not complaining - just stating a fact.

In Australia's electoral system, however, unlike in a democracy, the votes of different eligible individuals have different values:

People who happen to live in a "marginal" electorate have much more say about laws and policies than those living in a "stable" electorate - possibly in the opposite building on the other side of their street.
Come elections, politicians will visit and ask them what they want and make promises - not so their less-fortunate neighbours whose vote is not expected to make any difference.

Same for people in geographically concentrated communities. Say when some ethnic group, comprising 10% of the voting population, likes to live together in the same neighbourhood - their interests are then likely to be considered by politicians; but if some other 10% of the population has a crucially important and unique issue, but are evenly spread all over the continent, then nobody will listen to them!

[continued...]

[...continued]

«whether they are the garbage man or the multibillionaire.»

An archaic example which probably belongs over a century ago.
You know, a garbage man can also be a multibillionaire - what if they just like their job?
Sadly, Australian politics is so removed from today's reality with politicians still focused on silly and irrelevant "Left"/"Right"//"Have"/"Have-not" old divisions.

It's Australia's absurd electoral system which preserves and perpetuates the dominance of these two ice-aged Left=Right parties.

«The party that obtains the greatest number of elected candidates, together with its allied parties, if it has any, becomes the “ruling majority”.»

Are you aware that having political parties is not required in Australia?
The only mention of them in the constitution is in clauses 15 and 75, both on minor technicalities.

And how unfair it is to be ruled by a fixed majority, rather than by the majority view of the people (and/or their representatives) on each matter as it arises.

«And that is what we value and respect when we accept to be ruled by a democracy rather than be ruled by some other form of government.»

Democracy means the rule of the people, not "the rule of democracy" nor "the rule of government". Australia does not have it.

«There is no such thing as “an imposed arbitrary cohort” in a freely elected, democratic majority.»

Why then, for example, only "those over 18"?
The Greens would like to lower that bar while conservatives would like to raise it. The end result is arbitrary.

Why just humans? Animals and their interests could be represented too (again, the Greens would love it).
Why just those living in this continent and an arbitrary list of nearby islands?
Why not prisoners who are the worst victims of this system but get no say about changing the laws which imprisoned them?

«Only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.»

Which is however meaningless without freely agreeing first about {the majority of WHAT} and {the minority of WHAT}.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « People who happen to live in a "marginal" electorate have much more say about laws and policies than those living in a "stable" electorate »
.

Irrespective of where people live, everyone’s vote has the same value : one. And it is highly improbable that everyone in each electoral district – “marginal” and “stable” – always votes for the same candidate at every election. There are always some voters in both “marginal” and “stable” electoral districts who do not vote like everybody else in their electoral districts.

Nor is the mere fact of living in a “marginal” electoral district a guarantee of having “much more say about laws and policies than those living in a "stable" electorate. The odds of voting for a candidate who is elected or not elected are exactly the same, irrespective of the electorate in which the voter happens to live.

The “swing” vote is a pendulum that swings from left to right and from right to left, and the “swing” voters are usually positioned around the centre – near the borderline between the left and the right. They are the principal focus of attention of the political parties and candidates. But the “swing” voters have no predetermined political allegiance to either left or right.

As fate would have it, the “swing” voters often determine the final result of the elections.

I couldn’t imagine a better arbiter than the centrists even if I tried.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

2. « Democracy means the rule of the people, not "the rule of democracy" nor "the rule of government". Australia does not have it. »
.

What we have in Australia is representative democracy, Yuyutsu.
Fair and open elections at regular intervals is the method of representation. While the elected representatives have a certain measure of discretion in their action, the people retain the right to voice their opinions and grievances to those in office at any time, as well as to manifest peacefully and petition the government.

At the end of their term the elected representatives are held to account by the people.

Elections not only select leaders, they also affect the actions and policies of those in power. While in office those who govern have an incentive to anticipate the retrospective judgment of voters at the end of their term.
.

3. « Why then, for example, only "those over 18" [are allowed to vote?] The Greens would like to lower that bar while conservatives would like to raise it. The end result is arbitrary. »
.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1973 lowered the limit from age 21 (which had been in force since 1918) to age 18, the new age limit for adulthood.

Adulthood is the age at which an individual is considered capable of assuming full legal responsibility, for his or her own acts and omissions. As such, he or she has the legal obligation in Australia to comply with the compulsory voting law.

Perhaps the time has now come, a little over half a century later, in 2025, to lower that limit from 18 years to 16 years. But, for the that to happen, the Australian Parliament would need to pass a new law.

.