At 03:58 PM 15/09/2013, Richard wrote: >Neither of these solve the problem of inclusiveness, however.
The issue of including 'independents' or single issue reps, either in the Senate or lower house, is an interesting one. I'm less bothered by that than the bizantine preference distribution outcomes. I like the idea of non-aligned people in the Parliament because they have as much right to run and be elected as anyone else. There are silly ones and good ones and bad ones in the parties as well. As long as we have party representation instead of local representation, we need independents. The Indi example is a case in point. People got fed up with being ignored. I don't know if the new person will have a huge voice this time round because there isn't a hung parliament like last time. But she will have a voice and will speak to the issues of her local constituency and may even provide better services (non-legislative) than Mirabella did which is why she's lost. I think this next 3 yrs are going to be quite interesting and Tony Abbott (as opposed to Tony Albonese -- did anyone else notice that similarity?) is going to get some home truths about politics being the art of compromise. Otherwise he's going to find himself either being replaced or a 1 term government because he'll stuff it up. Pick one. Jan Melbourne, Victoria, Australia [email protected] Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. ~Margaret Atwood, writer _ __________________ _ _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
