The closer we are to the elections, the more I feel distant from the 2 leading parties.
How can a democracy become so polarized into two clubs where the voter have an 'either/or' choice?

I mean, is it ok for me on the 24th, that I walk into the voting with a printed copy of this comment, stapled to a cheque for the amount of the 'not voting' fine, hand them over to the poll station and walk away?

Maybe nobody have done it before, but its sure tempting!

Dare I say it :) ?... "human nature"... I don't think you can divorce any party from the interests it serves... democracy is indeed about freedom and choice..but its also about having to choose those who may not represent your own interests or.. values (In my case).

It all makes those words of Jesus sooooooooooooo refreshing to me "My kingdom is not 'of' this world"... because as soon as it becomes so... it begins to reflect the interests of the worlds in habitants which are often competing.

google 'direct democracy' and you will discover oz is something else.

considering the general level of political education, or sophistication, here in oz, you are very lucky to have a choice of two masters. serfs more commonly have to curtsy to just one, who serves for life and passes the baton to a son.

but i expect amalgamation of the factions of the political party soon. this will save the expense of the election charade, and allow you to devote all your saturday mornings to gardening. this will be handy, you will depend on you garden for survival.

“…democracy is indeed about freedom and choice..but its also about having to choose those who may not represent your own interests or.. values (In my case).”

I disagree Boazy. We should NEVER be in the position of HAVING to choose between candidates that we don’t like. If we are, then we don’t have democracy, end of story.

It is your duty, my duty, Fellow_Human’s duty, and the duty of everyone else who doesn’t strongly support either major party, to NOT vote for them…..and to not vote for any minor candidate where your preferences will filter down and count for one of the major parties….which is exactly what happens in our totally democratically perverted compulsory preferential voting system.

In the absence of optional preferential voting and a box on our ballot papers marked; ‘no candidate deserves my vote’, us three…. and a large section of the populace… are surely OBLIGATED to put in a null vote.

almost right, ludwig:

write in "democracy"!

There is, of course, a very simple solution to the problem.

Voters can give their first preference to the Greens candidate. I believe there's one running in just about every electorate in the country - including, of course, State Senate constituencies.

It won't get many Greens elected, but it certainly fixes the problem for me :)

Ludwig,

Thats my point, that we seem to be heading the French path with one vision and voters should chose between 'pro' and anti.

At my work, if we decide to get a contractor to do a $50K-100K piece of work, I check their references and they are subject to strict inteviewing process. Once they are in, they are managed on weekly milestones to ensure they deliver.

Should there be a process to qualify MPs and candidates for their job. How do we benchmark politicians performance against promises, action and budget?

Not sure if there is an answer, maybe communities of interest interview and a rating card. I am still thinking but would love to hear some ideas.

Hi CJ Morgan,

I like the greens but I wouldn't go as far as saying they have an alternative vision and policy. They are a good 'tilting' vote though.

Boaz,

I am scratching my head. How on earth did the election conversation become a Jesus conversation:-) ? You are incurable but we luv ya.

Peace,

CJ, your vote would still end up counting for one of the major parties, whichever one you put highest on the ticket. If you put them last and second last, your vote would count for the clowns you put second last, unless the greens were actually one of the two highest scoring candidates in your seat.

Thus, voting for a minor candidate doesn’t fix anything… in the vast majority of seats.

You presumably would be voting green because you specifically don’t want to vote for either major party. You could hardly say; “it certainly fixes the problem for me” if you then willingly allocate your preferences to one of the major parties. But you are forced to allocate preferences. So in your case the compulsory preferential system will directly steel your vote and make it count where you don’t want it to.

Besides, as far as I’m concerned, neither the Greens nor the Democrats deserve my vote either.

Indeed, Ludwig - but in my electorate it wouldn't make any kind of difference in practice - the long serving Nationals seat warmer invariably wins with more than 60% of the primary vote anyway. Of course, the Senate is a different question.

Your only option is to null your House of Reps vote, mine is to quixotically squander it.

Are you intending to vote informally in the Senate as well as the Hous of Reps?

There is nothing stopping you from voting for a minor party. Rank the two major ones last if you must. You should be able to tell enough difference between them to put one ahead of the other.

Freediver, CJ Morgan and Ludwig,

OK, you brought a very interesting challenge to the system in the last 3 posts:

- What happens if a minor party (ie Greens) would be a favourable party on top of two main ones? How would it govern or scale?

Actually from what I can see in country areas at least, its more likely an independent will win over a minor party. There are more and more indpendents running in country electorates, and many are winning, at both state and fed levels. From what I can gather its mostly because of a large disatisfaction with the Nationals, who would have traditionally held all of these seats. The Nationals were always traditionally much closer to the centre of politics than the Libs, and the revolt against them in the electorate has much to do with them basically being the same as the Libs. Most country people still cant bring themselves Left enough to vote Labor, so they instead turn to independents who echo much of the "old" national party values. I am actually quite interested to see how the Nat's fare in this election in NSW, particularly given there have been some big electorate boundary changes.

For starters, to actually govern they would have to win half the seats, not just one. As they transition from a minor party to a major player they would have to undergo some fundamental changes. They would have to have an increased focus on their ability to manage well rather than focussing on ideology. This would be more of a pre-requisite than a result of gaining power. I personally don't see it happening, as the parties carve out niches for themselves and attract appropriate candidates. The minor parties will always attract the ideologues and the major parties the managers. It would only happen if one of the major parties imploded somehow, then a minor party would rise to fill the vaccuum and in doing so change itself.

Its actually interesting to look at our basically 2 party system, which we have in common with the US and UK, and compare it to the systems of other countries including some European countries where no party is able to form government in its own right, and there are often changing co-alitions (and changing governments). I dont know heaps about that alternative political environment, but is anyone in the position to comment on whether this detracts from or adds to (or is simply no different) political, domestic and economic stability?

I think that you tend to get more, smaller parties when you have multi member electorates (ie proportional representation).

Having shifting coalitions can create political instability (eg Israel) but I'm not sure whether this tends to translate into policy instability. The US government suffers from instability that results from using first past the post voting, which tends to widen the ideological gap between the two major parties. Compared to this, Australia's government is extremely stable, with both major parties being very similar ideologically.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html

Actually, the answer to both FH and CG is 'proportional representation' - like we have in the Senate, in a modified form in Tasmania and they do in some European countries. Our system, under which the winner (i.e. that candidate who can, by hook or by crook, secure 50% +1 of the vote) takes all, is hopelessly undemocratic and results in the stupid system where power alternates between two major political parties who look more and more like each other. This is exacerbated by compulsory preferential voting.

I don't think that the Greens seriously contemplate governing in their own right in the forseeable future, but they do contemplate participating in government. That is why they have a comprehensive range of policies that covers every politically salient issue and portfolio.

It is not undemocratic. It is just a different level of representation - more local. having two similar major parties because of compulsory voting is far better than having government switch between wildly differing extremist parties.

My favoured option is voting by delgable proxy. It would largely do away with parties, but maintain stability. It would bring us closer to direct democracy, but only for those who want it.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html#direct-democracy

“Are you intending to vote informally in the Senate as well as the House of Reps?”

Unfortunately yes CJ.

In the senate we either mark one square above the line or every square below the line.

If we mark one square above, preferences end up counting for one of the two major candidates in manner that is predetermined and completely out of the control of the voter.

If you vote below the line you have to mark every square, so no matter how you mark them your vote will filter down until it counts for one of the two front-running candidates.

So as with the lower house, the voter effectively does not have the choice to vote against both major candidates.

"If you vote below the line you have to mark every square, so no matter how you mark them your vote will filter down until it counts for one of the two front-running candidates."

Wrong. In the last senate election, my vote ended up staying with the candidate who came seventh.

Even in the lower house, where it does often end up with one of the top two candidates, this is not a bad thing. To say it didn't count for your favourite is wrong. It did. Your favourite lost. Getting the opportunity to choose between the two favourites is an added bonus that detracts nothing at all from your first preference.

Freediver

“In the last senate election, my vote ended up staying with the candidate who came seventh.”

And you were happy with that? How many voters do you think would be happy with their vote effectively counting for their seventh choice? Surely if they put a candidate below third or maybe fourth position, in the compulsory preferential system where they are obligated to rank all candidates, then their intent is for their vote to NOT count for them.

If your preferences stopped filtering down at your seventh choice, then your seventh choice was one of the two front-running candidates, yes? So why did you label the statement of mine that you quoted as “wrong”?

“Getting the opportunity to choose between the two favourites is an added bonus that detracts nothing at all from your first preference.”

We have discussed this before on other threads. I don’t believe that you are still saying this. There is no bonus in being effectively forced to choose between the two “favourites” when you hate both of them and strongly wish to not vote for either of them. Isn’t that straightforward and bluntly obvious?

"And you were happy with that?

Well obviously I would have preferred if he or she had gotten in, but you can't complain that something is undemocratic just because you are on the loosing side.

"How many voters do you think would be happy with their vote effectively counting for their seventh choice?

Not my seventh choice. The candidate who came seventh.

"Surely if they put a candidate below third or maybe fourth position, in the compulsory preferential system where they are obligated to rank all candidates, then their intent is for their vote to NOT count for them.

This is where the fundamental misunderstanding of the system is. You do not vote for or against candidates. You rank them in order of preference. This allows you to convey far more information.

"If your preferences stopped filtering down at your seventh choice, then your seventh choice was one of the two front-running candidates, yes?

No. There are normally six people elected to the senate for each state.

"We have discussed this before on other threads. I don’t believe that you are still saying this.

Why not? I am correct after all.

"There is no bonus in being effectively forced to choose between the two “favourites” when you hate both of them and strongly wish to not vote for either of them.

If your candidate is already out of the race, there is a bonus. You get to continue participating in the democratic process at no cost at all to your rpeferred candidate. Remember, to say you are voting 'for' or 'against' one of them misses the point completely. you are ranking them.

"Isn’t that straightforward and bluntly obvious?

No. It is wrong. It is a misrepresentation of our democratic process.

“Not my seventh choice. The candidate who came seventh.”

EXACTLY freediver!

It was NOT your choice to have your vote count for the seventh candidate. So where’s the democracy in that?

How on earth can we have democracy under anyone’s definition if your vote counts where you don’t want it to or where it was not your choice to have it count?? ?? ??

“You do not vote for or against candidates.”

Huh? Of course you do.

“Remember, to say you are voting 'for' or 'against' one of them misses the point completely. you are ranking them.”

Sorry, but you’ve completely lost me. You shouldn’t be obligated to rank candidates. It should be the voter’s choice, as per the optional preferential system. And if you don’t like any of the candidates, you should be able to formally vote for no candidate.

"It was NOT your choice to have your vote count for the seventh candidate. So where’s the democracy in that?

That's how democracy works. Just because your candidate loses doesn't mean it isn't democratic.

"How on earth can we have democracy under anyone’s definition if your vote counts where you don’t want it to or where it was not your choice to have it count?? ?? ??

Please. Read my post again. You did not understand it. Are you in Australia? Do you know how our system works?

“That's how democracy works”

So you don’t deny that your vote counted where you really didn’t intend it to. And you reckon that is acceptable under a democratic voting system!

mmmMMMMMmmm.

Freediver, are you genuine or are you spinning some bizarre fantasy for the sake of a reaction?

If you are genuine then please explain your position, as fully as you can, in multiple posts if necessary. Because at the moment what you are saying seems completely loopy.

No offence, but it just doesn’t gel at all.

"So you don’t deny that your vote counted where you really didn’t intend it to.

yes I do deny that. Read my post. I ranked the candidate first, or close to first. The candidate came seventh. When I say the candidate came seventh, that does not mean I ranked them seventh. Seventh was the outcome of the election, not my vote. I am not sure how to make this any clearer.