You certainly have both eyes open Al, and thanks for the careful analysis of
both 'A New Australian Democracy' and, omega himself - points taken.
There are some excellent programs on Aunties ABC Radio National right now
regarding our rapidly diminishing democracy; in particular, governments use
of 'commercial in confidence' confidence tricks , to circumvent The People.
One program specially that I never miss if possible is: Background Briefing.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, 26 October 1998 1:00 AM
Subject: RE: POLICY proposal - single member electorates
>[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.
>
>
