[OMEGA]
Here is a bit that might be of interest:
A New Australian Democracy
A Plan to Introduce Far Greater Democracy
into our Current System
of Parliamentary Representation
"In Australia we no longer have a democracy we have an elected
dictatorship.
We elect a political party one day every three years and the rest of the
time, it dictates to us."
Sir Mark Oliphant
"The idea that Parliament represents the people is simply one of the
fictions of Australian public life"
Donald Horne
"In Australia members represent their parties, not their voters."
Hugh Mackay
"The parties are rife with careerists, cronyism, nepotism and the
fostering
of corruption. They have become like two Mafia gangs vying for power to
gain
control of the Australian treasury to distribute benefits to those who
fund
them and their "mates". Elections become multi-million dollar
competitions
between two advertising agencies offering false promises and election
bribes. The rigid two party system is dragging the country down,
resulting
in endless scandals, corruption and personal abuse, and threatens
democracy
itself."
Ted Mack
"The shift to participatory democracy by such measures as direct
election of
prime ministers, premiers and mayors; the separation of executives and
legislatures; increased use of referenda and citizen initiated
referenda;
electoral reform; fixed four-year terms of office and proper levels of
representation together with maximum open government and public
participation to build a consensus is the only possible way to reform."
Ted Mack
[AL]
The above quotes from the One Nation web site are very useful thanks.
They and many others that can be
culled from newpspaer articles, books, etc should be collected on our
web site and available for inclusion in Neither leaflets etc etc.
We should develop a widespread understanding that the two party system
is unacceptable and unite the MANY people of different views who are
getting sick of it (not necessarily as members of Neither but by acting
as a focus to mobilize that feeling with concrete proposals for change).
I will refrain from quoting the whole of the remainder of the item
Omega is passing on and only quote the bits I want to comment on.
(I wish Omega would do that too - I had almost added "Omega" to my
personal
ignore filter after getting several messages that were nothing but
quotes
of entire articles without even a comment and a large number that had
quotes of entire previous messages without any attempt to respond
seriously
to other people's views in a way that would encourage further discussion
rather than encouraging people to ignore anything from Omega, before
noticing that Omega
might actually be able to contribute something useful after settling
down).
[O]
However, under our current Westminster system, representative democracy
has
become a farce. Parliament itself has become a sham of democracy.
Instead of
being composed of individuals who represent the interests of a
particular
geographical sector of society, parliament is now essentially composed
of
party hacks who represent the interests of a particular political party,
or
even just a particular faction of such a party.
[AL]
This view is widely held and often seen in letters to the editor etc. I
think it misses the point. In any modern industrial society individuals
representing particular geographical sectors just aren't that relevant
any more. The interests that mainly need to be represented in a national
parliament are different political views on the national and
international
issues of the day. This inevitably means political parties and there is
simply no way back to some "golden age" of independent politicians not
tied
to any party representing local geographic sectors (which was in fact
just
a corrupt landed oligarchy).
The problem with "party hacks" is not caused by parties but by hack
parties.
[O]
The big political parties are structured in such a way so that the power
to
decide who shall be chosen as the party candidate for each electorate is
often determined by "power struggles" and "deals" between the separate
factions of the party (witness the many pre-selection faction deals).
Because of traditional voting behaviour, reinforced by media emphasis on
the
big parties, and the resulting common perception that only these parties
can
successfully operate in government, the major parties have a virtual
monopoly on the governing of the nation.
[AL]
Nope - that could account for their 80% vote but not for their "virtual
monopoly".
The monopoly is based directly on the single member electorates which
date
back to the long forgotton time of representation of geographical
interests.
[O]
Thus, the major parties have become complacent in their governing of the
country. They often forget, or deliberately ignore, the wishes and
concerns
of their constituents (i.e. the very people who elected them). Leaders
of
the big political parties have spoken of being "elected to govern",
rather
than being "elected to represent" - this change of phrase shows a big
transition in the political thinking of the leaders of the major
parties,
indicating that they intend to govern according to their own wishes and
the
wishes of their parties, rather than according to the wishes of the
people.
Political disregard for the ordinary voters apparently changes during
election campaigns, when politicians are casting about for votes; but
all
their promises can be forgotten once they're back in parliament, and the
system turns back into just another "parliamentary dictatorship" for
another
few years.
[AL]
Nope. The two party system is more sensitive to public opinion than any
other system. Both parties are extremely sensitive to the latest
opinion polls and continuously adapting their policies to the wishes
and concerns of their constituents with a view to ensuring that more
of them will vote for their own party than the opposing one.
The problem is that the wishes and concerns of their constituents cannot
develop much in this situation (except for growing but unfocussed
dissatisfaction
and resentment) because there is no scope for real political debate
about actual
policies.
PR would actually reduce the sensitivity of parties to existing public
opinion
as formed by the media and encourage the various parties to consolidate
their
own opinions and try to win more support for those opinions so as to
gain
more representation.
It is only when all that matters in a legislature is which of two
parties
will win the next election that you get the acute sensitivity to opinion
polls characteristic of Australian politics.
[O]
2) Multi-Member Electorates will be formed by merging three existing
electorates into one, whereby any candidate who attracts over 25% of the
vote will attain a seat in parliament. This will enable representation
for
about 80-90% of first preference votes, instead of the low 50-55% under
the
current system.
[AL]
This looks like it was written when One Nation really had deluded
themselves
that they would get about 25% of the vote based on their initial success
in
Queensland. It would enable them to join the two party system as THE
third
party opposed to both the others while continuing to exclude all others
from representation. Nice try but it won't happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if they now go for 5-9 member electorates as the
optimum means for ensuring One Nation gets represented while continuing
to exclude everyone else - since 3 member electorates will in fact gain
them nothing.
But there will be NO electoral reform until there is widespread
agreement
on representation that is fair to all, not just calculated to improve
the chances of one section.
[...O]
Considering the unequal balance of voter numbers between electorates in
all
of the democratic nations around the world, Australia would be the first
modern nation to introduce true "one person, one vote, one value"
representative democracy.
[AL]
Almost all European countries already have full PR. People in Australia
don't realize that the two party system is considered absurd elsewhere
because it so happens that most of the English speaking societies we are
closest to
still have it (USA, Britain, Canada) although New Zealand has already
moved to a degree of PR and more than 2 parties.
The writer Omega is quoting either hasn't studied these issues at all
or is deliberately avoiding any reference to that fact in order to
make the ludicrous proposal for a reform that would only benefit One
Nation look more plausible (which could also account for it being
presented as resulting in "independents" rather than in one-third
representation
for a party with 25% support and one-third for each of the two other
parties
with about 40% support each).
[O]
Preferential voting for the Upper House of Parliament (the Senate) would
also be possible with Actual-Number Representation. While - under the
current system - elections for the House of Representatives allow voters
to
give their preferences to another candidate if their first preference
candidate is eliminated from the election count (due to lack of votes),
elections for the Senate deny this possibility, effectively
disenfranchising
everyone whose first preference wasn't for one of the major parties
(with
some rare Independent or Green exceptions) - thus making the procedure a
huge travesty of democratic representation.
[AL]
Ok this bit suggests the author really is somebody who hasn't studied
the question at all rather than being carefully designed to support
One Nation as I suspected above. (I'll leave my original
suspicions intact as a reminder of the ancient principle that when
faced with a phenomenon that could only be explained by either
conspiracy
or stupidity, bet on stupidity every time).
Senate voting is of course already based on EXACTLY the "Actual-Number
Representation"
with transfer of preferences to another candidate if the preferred
candidates
are excluded, which the author proposes.
