[DG]
I understand that the Labor and Liberal Parties are ganging up for a
referendum to reduce the size of the NSW Upper House, presumably so that
two-party ("bipartisan") control is consolidated. (Shades of
Tasmania?).
Tinkering with representative systems is perfectly acceptable if it
strengthens the hand
of the electors and hence strengthens democracy -- even if the motive is
to
advantage one or another party. However, it seems that the tinkering
going
on in NSW is aimed at weakening the ability of the voters to elect a
representative mixture (including independents and parties not owned by
corporate business) which reflects numerical strength in the community.
Dion Giles
Fremantle, WA
[AL]
In another message "RE: teamwork" Anita Hood wrote:
[AH]
It seems that in NSW there may be a fight to keep
optional preferential voting going at a state level. A NSW Liberal
Barry O'Farrell reckons that One Nation have less chance under a full
preferential system and so wants NSW to change from optional
preferential voting.
[AL]
There have also been a couple of messages offering to help get things
going in NSW and we had lots of contacts from there in 1996.
Perhaps it's time to get down to tin tacks for at least a NSW branch to
startup immediately in response to whatever happens there while we are
figuring out what else to do nationally?
Neither has no policy for either compulsory ("full") or optional
preferential voting.
(I prefer compulsory myself).
Any campaign should make it quite clear that whether voters are required
to
put a number in every box or not it is a crime to attempt to coerce
voters
to vote in favor of candidates they want to vote against. If that is
what
is behind the O'Farrel then he is a criminal. Opposition to that crime
should be described as support for free elections and opposition to
coercion of voters, not as support for optional preferential and
opposition
to "full preferential".
It has been extremely difficult to get that across to the media and
Courts continue
to write judgments about it based on media reports rather than anything
before
them (as recently as 30 September).
It is important that we take a consistent line on this nationally.
Neither also has no policy on the size of upper houses. Pretense that
they were
reducing size of Parliament in Tasmania was just cover for reducing the
number of
seats for each electorate in order to raise the quota and exclude Greens
- they
could have simply reduced the number of seats and maintained current
level of
proportionality.
Presumably the reduction in size of NSW upper house is similar to
Tasmania and
should therefore be opposed by Neither as Dion suggests - but I don't
know
anything about it.
Can anyone provide more info on either of these NSW issues?
