-----Original Message-----
From: Dion Giles
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 11:47 am
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Democrats, PR, OPV, CPV
I am not the most expert person on this list with
respect to voting methods or the Democrat approach to them, and I hope
that perhaps someone who knows the scene better will come in at this
point. However, in the meantime I'll reprint Albert's questions for
reference and do my best to respond.
-------------
[AL]
Although I understand the above [in a previous
exchange-DG] being the reason behind the Democrats bizarre support for
propping up the two party system by illegal coercion I am curious about
what we need to do to help Democrat members change that party policy. Is
it your estimate that Democrat members are widely aware that their party
has supported the ALP and Coalition on this and do you expect them to
change that policy? What can Neither do about it?
On a related matter, for the same reason I suspect that
the Greens are more likely to wake up and start seriously fighting for
PR than the Democrats who seem happy enough to remain the "half" of the
"two and a half party system" doing preference deals. Are the Democrats
a write off on this or they likely to end up seriously fighting for PR?
Likewise, what can Neither do to persuade both the
Democrats and Greens to take this up as a fight rather than just a wish
(and One Nation for that matter)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------
[DG] to the best of my understanding, the Democrats are
quite serious about extending PR to all Houses in Australia and have
everything to gain from this in terms of their own representation.
There is, however, little interest in extending PR to
the extent of making Senate representation proportional to voting
strength other than within each State-i.e. no. of Senators from a State
proportional to the size of the State. They're not against this as a
group but it simply hasn't got on to the agenda and would I believe be
divisive if it did. Division is poison to every political party.
Aside from that issue I do not believe the Democrats are
half-hearted about
[AH] hello Dion - Anita joining in
[The parliamentary dems are not halfhearted in their
criminal corruption of the electoral regulations. It is sad but true
that in terms of building some kind of united front on this issue it is
Pauline pantsdown who is the only one who did not vote For, or Against
the amendments, so she is not criminal in this matter but all the rest
are. (we need a list of all the politicians who have supported this) The
electoral commission ought to be pursuing those who supported these
amendments for the crime of political interference/coercion. There is
no democratic election when electors are forced to vote fort candidates
they reject in order to vote for the candidate/party of their choice.
The Dems not only supported these amendments but have
historically taken a harder line against this campaign than any
parliamentary party. It's all there in the records, (Hansard and JSCEM
report) see especially the dissenting report of the Democrat member on
the JSCEM Sen Andrew Murray.
There are 8 volumes of submissions and a final report of
the Inquiry into all aspects of the 1996 Federal election etc. Volume 3
is the most relevant on Neither! issues but it is worthwhile contacting
the JSCEM secretariat (06 277 2374) subject to area code changes and
getting the hard copy for ease of skim reading etc.
On s329A the Dems actually argued that the prohibition
against advocating other than in accordance with s240 apply alll year
around and not just at election time!
PR but rather that
(1) there are higher policy priorities for their
limited resources, such as social issues, Aboriginal rights, economic
issues, individual rights issued related to gender and sexual
orientation.
(2) opportunities for exercising a say in policy questions
(including PR) are not there continuously-the major parties normally set
the context and out-of-context sallies leave scarcely a ripple after a
day or so.
3 When a smaller party can take a lead on an issue of no interest
to the major parties is when there is a groundswell of interest among
the mass of the people as there was for instance over environment (which
the Democrats and the Greens ran with before it got on to theclorporate
business parties' agenda) or over those issues which One Nation pursues.
I would expect that this will also be why the Greens and
One Nation sppear quiescent over PR.
I believe on the other hand that there is probably a
division of view between much of the Democrat rank and file and the
parliamentary wing (including rank-and-file power groupies) when it
comes to OPV or what is termed "Langer votes" meaning CPV but giving the
same number (other than 1) to more than one candidate. It is
interesting that internally the voting system (e.g. for office-bearers)
is OPV as it is in many organisations (e.g. academic governance for
example, or union ballots). However, when it comes to parliamentary
elections OPV threatens the preogativers of power brokers to horse-trade
preferences in order to maximise the ability of candidates to get
elected without having to inspire enough people to give them a primary
vote. This imperative is greatest in single-member or high-quota
multiple-member electorates.
I repeat that I am not very expert in this field and
that others can give better info. I'll try, off line, to get hold of a
clearer picture which might better lead to policy changes especially on
OPV. Re PR I suspect that the best that can be achieved in any party
which generally supports is to lift the profile of the issue in the
priority pecking order. It would of course come to a head if Neither
were at any time to field candidates on its policies, and if any one
party decided to make it a major electoral issue there would be a
greater impetus for others to so so as well.
Dion Giles
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
with unsubscribe as the subject.
For help with this mailing list, look at
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
<http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm>
