[DK]
The description of Neither! given on its website is:
>Neither! is a broad coalition of people and groups fighting for
Proportional >Representation in Australia. We seek to smash the two
party
system.
[AL]
I cringe when I see that description as we are not (yet) a broad
coalition
of people and groups at all.
[DK]
Whilst I support smashing the two party system, I need convincing that
Proportional Representation is the best replacement. It is certainly
not
the ONLY replacement that would make a significant improvement, so I
suggest
broadening Neither's stated aims to include other viable possibilities
(e.g.
Citizens Intitiated Referenda).
[AL]
Fair enough, you and/or many, many others would need to be convinced of
that
(or convince others to take a different approach), before any kind of
broad coalition could be formed with that as an agreed basis. The best
way
to achieve that is not by pretending that it already exists, as that web
page did, but the way that you Alister Air are going about it, by
raising
these sort of questions for serious discussion.
[DK]
Rewritten, the statement may need to be as general as:
"Neither! is a broad coalition of people and groups fighting to smash
the
two party system in Australia. We seek to install a system of
government
more responsive to the wishes of the people."
[AL]
I disagree. More general statements always look superficially more
attractive
because everyone can agree on them. But the agreement then becomes
meaningless
because they have not actually agreed on anything but a willingness to
make
a general statement. In this case the general statement "We seek to
install
a system of government more responsive to the wishes of the people"
could
easily lead to a chorus of "me too" from everyone in Australia without
actually
posing any challenge whatever to the two party system.
There has to be some concrete program for smashing the two party system
that
people can either agree or disagree with. Then we have to persuade them
to
agree with both the objective and that concrete program for achieving it
or else adopt some other concrete program that we CAN persuade people
to agree with or else abandon hope of smashing the two party system.
[DK]
Proportional Representation is not perfect, not without problems of its
own.
[AL]
Agreed. But if we try to propose a perfect system without problems of
its
own we shall never agree on what it is and certainly never achieve it.
If the overall goal is to smash the two party system, then the question
is whether
a concrete goal of PR or some other concrete goal (eg CIR or CIR + PR)
is the appropriate concrete means to achieve that goal.
I believe PR precisely answers the question of how to smash the two
party system -
no more and no less. It does not (and could not) ensure that government
will be
responsive to the wishes of the people or any other such thing. But it
does ensure
that government and politics generally will not be dominated entirely by
two political
parties and therefore that the "two party system" cannot continue. It
does that very
simply by ensuring that every party is represented in proportion to its
strength.
Given that the two parties have already declined to less than 80%
support it ensures
that future governments would be minority governments whose ability to
enact their
legislative program would depend on their winning majorities in actual
political
debates (and behind the scenes manouvres) rather than every decision
being pre-determined by
which of two parties won elections held every few years.
That is precisely what is required to smash the two party system - no
more and no less.
[DK]
For example it eliminates the (theoretical) representative of me and the
area where I live... so if there is something I want to complain about
locally, who do I go to see? I can't imagine someone elected by numbers
coming from all over a state or country being particularly responsive to
local concerns.
[AL]
This argument has been and will be an obstacle to the adoption of PR, so
it is
important that we develop a clear answer to it (or find some other way
to
smash the two party system).
My view is that the answer already given by Electoral Reform Societies
is
adequate and just needs to be widely explained. Under PR any group with
a quota (say 70,000) can be represented. If people want to be
represented
on the basis of the area in which they live then they will get together
to elect a local representative. This would I think be unusual in a
modern
industrial society and would only happen in rural areas but if for
example
a local area community of say 250,000 voters had only 40,000 voters who
were
more interested in non-local representation then the 210,000 who want
local representation
could elect 3 representatives with similar or different views on how
that area should be represented.
Even an area
with only 80,000 voters, of whom 10,000 were concerned primarily with
non-local
representation could still have 5 candidates competing for a quota and
exchanging
preferences to ensure that 1 member representating the local area was
elected
with a quota.
More likely quotas would be formed on a regional rather than local basis
- a party representing "NSW dairy farmers" might form its quotas from
all
over NSW based on issues that are of "local" concern to dairy farmers in
various parts of NSW.
Most people in cities would have little interest in "local"
representation
and would vote on national or international issues. But there could also
be quotas formed from subcultures such as Aboriginals, gays, Asian
lesbian
cyborgs or what have you.
The existing "local" representation is purely theoretical as you say.
But
to the extent that people DO want to be represented on the basis of
local
communities that is exactly how they would vote and exactly how they
would
be represented, so it would be REAL instead of theoretical.
[DK]
On the other hand it is said of CIR that it doesn't matter who wins
government... their errors can be overridden by referenda initiated by
the
people. And there are probably other improvements to the current system
that
may appeal to members.
[AL]
Well I've never actually seen it claimed for CIR that it has such
miracle
working powers that it would not matter who wins government. But if that
is said it is obviously silly.
There certainly are many other improvements to the current system that
will appeal
to, or be rejected by, different people for different reasons.
The point about PR is that deals precisely and sharply with the question
of smashing the two party system. Nothing more and nothing less. If we
win (full) PR
we have smashed the two party system. If we lose we haven't.
[DK]
However, there is another issue of perhaps greater importance, mentioned
in
several other postings to this list but not spelled out as one of
Neither's
core objectives.
I refer to the ceaseless propaganda campaign the population is subjected
to
by the mass media (aided by big business and politicians of course).
How
can any correct decision be made democratically whilst the people are
being
mislead and subjected to subtle coercion all the time? If any proof is
needed, consider how such a large percentage of voters can be conned
into
giving their primary votes to the major parties.
So, is Neither willing to tackle the media head-on? Without winning
this
battle first, I can't see the establishment allowing you to achieve your
other aims. Well, not in our lifetimes anyway!
[AL]
Under PR the media will continue to con people into giving their votes
to "misrepresentatives" subservient to interests supported by the media.
The only advantage will be some opening up of political debate so that
the media cannot keep telling us that the vital issues of the day are
ENTIRELY those on which the ALP and the Coalition pretend to differ.
They will have to actively campaign against other views too, instead
of just ignoring them. This results in people actually thinking about
other views.
To get PR we will have to fight against a media campaign in support of
it
and win that fight.
We won't first destroy the power of the media and then win PR, but
proving
that we can win some demand despite the power of the media will be a
major
blow weakening that power.
I don't see any advantage in adding something about tackling the power
of the
media as a core objective. We have to just do it as part of fighting for
the
core objectives. Any campaign about anything has no choice but to build
alternative
ways of getting its ideas across (among which the Internet is the most
promising)
and get on with doing that.
Demands that they be disarmed to make our job easier add nothing
effective. That
approach merely substitutes whining about how are enemies are powerful
for concrete
mobilization to weaken their power, as is so common in "protest"
movements.
