Good or Bad Thing ????

[coljones]

I dislike independents having the balance of control as it gives them power totally disproportionate to their democratic mandate.The peanut who was elected to the senate on a fraction of 1 percent of the vote and from what I could see knew nothing about everything and was open to being guided by "independents" like Palmer.

 

Those situations do make the Senate into the "Unrepresentative Swill" that Paul Keating ascribed to them.

 

Crazy part is that the ALP/Greens coalition and the Libs/Nats coalition could by simple agreement between them chose to ignore the votes of the minor parties by a process similar to the "pairing" arrangement that happens when an MP must be away from parliament and the other side has one of their own stand aside. It could be done by a handshake and that would be the end of independents forever.

 

I'm a big fan of Nick Xenophon but even he should only have power equivalent to his mandate rather than an accident of numbers.

The balance of power is actually held by either the Government or the opposition. The independants are nothing unless the government or opposition are up to no good. If the Government and opposition stopped adopting a winner take all position then more legislation would get passed by the government and opposition combining to squeeze the independants out.

I don't mind a bit of bloody mindedness from pollies. Those from the backbenches in either the government are generally gutless and lazy and it is usually up to the independants to cry foul when the emperors have no clothes.

 

"Unrepresentative swill" - not likely, the Senate far better represents the aspirations of the voters than does the lower house where each seat is won on a winner take all basis. It is entirely possible, but unlikely, that a single party can win ALL seats in the lower house, whereas the Senators are roughly elected to represent the population at large. The 0.05%ers get in because at the end of counting everyone has had a gutful of the offerings by the main parties and the remaining crumbs are thrown to the minors. Ricky Muir had more votes than the Liberal and ALP candidates that he beat. Another prob is that the Liberals and ALP won't get together to fix up the mess they created with complicated, almost secret, voting deals that push preferences to the fringes.

 

The Shooters as a group are appalling as they don't negotiate but will go on strike unless they get their own way. Barrel O'Farrell should have told the Shooters, Fred Nile, Alan Jones and Ray Hadley to collectively shove it because they were trying to wag the dog.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I dislike independents having the balance of control as it gives them power totally disproportionate to their democratic mandate.

That is unarguable Don, problem is that right now the "2 Party" deeper sanctum is using this as an excuse to try to wipe out those Independents for their own clear majority which I think is worse.

 

Let us not forget there are Senators in Senate both Liberal and Labour who weren't voted in at all and yet get to vote.

 

There needs to be different solutions considered.

 

 

[jetjr]

Arent federal senate seats state based so small states have same power as populus ones?

 

So a senate seat in a small state doesnt need too many voters

 

That aint democratic either

 

 

[old man emu]

If the Government and opposition stopped adopting a winner take all position then more legislation would get passed.

I think that you would be surprised at the amount of legislation that is passed with bi-partisan approval. It is only the big ticket items which reflect one Party's political philosophy that they fight about.

 

Aren't federal senate seats state based so small states have same power as populous ones? So a senate seat in a small state doesn't need too many voters. That ain't democratic either

When the Australian Federation was being worked out, the developers had to deal with the mis-trust between the colonies. Don't forget that there were Customs Houses on both sides of the Murray. They figured that there should be a means of expressing State's Rights in the governance of the country, so they made a bicameral system - the House of Representatives which is the People's House, and the Senate, which is the States' House. Each State was given an equal number of members in the Senate.

 

At that time, the Party system of politics had not developed to the extent it is today, so the Senators (and House of Reps members) tended to be more independent. Over time, the Australian bicameral system corrupted itself to mimic the Westminster system - House of Representatives = House of Commons; Senate = House of Lords. That's when the terms Upper and Lower Houses came into use to reflect the Senate's opinion that it was superior to the House of Representatives. Then, with the development of a Party political system, the Senators began to form blocs based on Party affiliation, and the Senate went from being a State's House to a house with a bias towards supporting its fellow party members in the House of Representatives.

 

So, the system that the framers of our Federation developed to overcome inter-colonial rivalry still maintains the seats per State ratios. It has lost the independence of opinion of its members through party affiliations.

 

OME

 

 

[facthunter]

Just for the record, Nick Xenophon does badly by the current senate preferences system. He has a high initial vote which is obviously a more accurate measure of his entitlement to be in the parliament V/S a concocted preferences arrangement. I have NO association with him or his group of supporters, but I do know he is fed good information on many things the mainstream media should have exposed but don't. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Let us not forget there are Senators in Senate both Liberal and Labour who weren't voted in at all and yet get to vote.

How did they get there then?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Good news: Tony's back for the election!

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Party people are there because the party arranged them in an order of being elected by general vote for the party.

 

The others are voted by a a currently legal process, of immense complexity of preference paths, but they are all voted there. Who bothers to vote below the line? It took me 7 minutes and I still probably made mistakes because you HAVE to vote for all. I'd like to be able to stop when it suits me. Why should I be forced to vote for someone I wouldn't give the time of day to..Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

How did they get there then?

Several senators have been appointed without ever facing an election

 

A casual Senate vacancy normally leads to a replacement being nominated by the state concerned. By convention the new senator is from the same party, but during the Whitlam years Joh's Qld government couldn't bear to help the ALP so they sent Albert Field.

 

.

 

 

[facthunter]

OK That is because the party appoint a replacement. They can do that but an individual can't. There are plenty of rules that favour the major parties. (why would we be surprised? They are self serving because they can be).

 

Keating's comment would reflect on the major parties. THEY are responsible for the Party Senators IF you are 1 or 2 or high on the list you are guaranteed a job with Lab/Lib/NP. Harridine (Tas) was in, blackmailing everyone somewhere near that time. Also The Greens are normally a senators only party but Adam Bandt performs well in the seat of Melbourne to get a lower house seat.

 

Queensland is alone being the only state to have no Upper House. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Sorry people but the senate system is vitally important and if the whole preference system makes you sick (it does me) then all you have to do is vote below the line. Making a valid vote below the line is a PITA, especially in the larger states, but at the end of the day if you could be bothered enough to write a response here, or read the thread content then the time cost is probably similar......had the WA ( as example only...could have been any state) population done that enmass then clowns r us driving senators would be driving senators of the Holden variety rather than being paid by the Australian taxpayer.......

 

It seems to me that we need to remove the ability of 2 men and a dog to end up validly nominating for the senate election, and by reducing the contenders down to a reasonable number do away with voting above the line. In doing so numbering say 1 to 12 is quite achievable, rather than 1 to 100, 90 of which you probably have never heard of, nor the tinpot org they represent...

 

Andy

 

 

[Ron5335]

Here is the worrying thing.

 

Take a look at the number of abstainers or non voters on issues where the

 

politicians are allowed a conscience vote on issues. (NSW Only)

 

http://www.nswvotes.org.au/conscience/

 

Appears that they do not have a mind of there own, or they don't trust themselves , and rely on other people to tell them how they think/vote.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I did time in a polling place at the last NSW State election and the things that surprised me were:

 

• The number of voters who drew a cock and balls on their ballot paper;
   
   
  
• The number of voters who declined a how to vote leaflet saying "We are just here to get our names ticked off; and,
   
   
  
• The number of voters who had no idea about pretty well anything and cast a vote confidently.
   
   
  

 

 

Ah, you have to love democracy.

 

What I learned by running for an elected office (not parliament) was that it takes some guts to have a go. Kind of embarrassing if you get rejected. As such, I admire anyone who puts their hand up to exercise their democratic right to the fullest even if I might not have much regard for their position.

 

Col Jones:

 

Independants can be suckered by the government and opposition on a wide range of issues.

Particularly if they possess low mental processing ability as has been the hallmark of many but not all independents (Nick X being the notable exception).

 

The balance of power is actually held by either the Government or the opposition. The independants are nothing unless the government or opposition are up to no good.

I don't understand that arithmetic. If the Government needs the support of the cross benches to get legislation enacted, the independents have massive power. They can ask for much in return for their vote and do and are rewarded. The Government do not have to be "up to no good" for the independents to have this power it just goes back to the numbers. Some fringe dweller gets vastly disproportionate say on what happens compared with the voter support they enjoyed - purely undemocratic.

 

it is usually up to the independants to cry foul when the emperors have no clothes

What? The opposition has no role in a Westminster democracy?

 

"Unrepresentative swill" - not likely

In a democracy, the majority is supposed to rule not the .05% morons.

A government when elected and asked by the Head of State to form a Government should be allowed to govern not be held to ransom by a bunch of fringe dwelling morons like some elected by Qld and WA last time. Queensland has it right with a single house and mostly, whoever wins the election gets to govern. The Opposition has a role of asking questions and holding the government to account but are not elected to prevent the government from governing.

 

For all that, at the National level, a genuine House of Review should be allowed to refuse any legislation but, as it is now, only thrice after which the Government of the day can accept the refusal or take the Senat to the polls in a double dissolution - something that should be done more often to keep the Senate aware that if they are frivolous, they will be held to account by the House of the People.

 

Ricky Muir had more votes than the Liberal and ALP candidates that he beat

Only because a flaw was exploited in the flawed Senate voting and preference system.

 

The Shooters as a group are appalling as they don't negotiate but will go on strike unless they get their own way. Barrel O'Farrell should have told the Shooters, Fred Nile, Alan Jones and Ray Hadley to collectively shove it because they were trying to wag the dog.

Could not agree more and an excellent example of why the oldest Parliament house (NSW LC) in Australia should be abolished - forthwith.

OME:

 

So, the system that the framers of our Federation developed to overcome inter-colonial rivalry still maintains the seats per State ratios.

Another example of how out-of-date our Commonwealth Constitution is. We have State of Origin Rugby League and Sheffield Shield Cricket to settle inter-state rivalries we do not need a Senate elected on that basis. I would reform the Senate so that it was democratically elected and that nobody could stand for the Senate unless they had not been a member of a political party of any persuasion for at least 10 years.

Andy:

 

Sorry people but the senate system is vitally important and if the whole preference system makes you sick (it does me) then all you have to do is vote below the line.

In a typical polling station there is usually only one person who does vote below the line and, strangely enough they get it right but it takes nearly as long to check as it does to vote it.

Clearly we need Optional Preference voting as is available in NSW.

 

we need to remove the ability of 2 men and a dog to end up validly nominating for the senate election, and by reducing the contenders down to a reasonable number do away with voting above the line

Or, allow anyone to stand but have optional preference voting so I don't have to work out how to put the loonie religious groups last.

 

 

[coljones]

Sorry people but the senate system is vitally important and if the whole preference system makes you sick (it does me) then all you have to do is vote below the line. Making a valid vote below the line is a PITA, especially in the larger states, but at the end of the day if you could be bothered enough to write a response here, or read the thread content then the time cost is probably similar......had the WA ( as example only...could have been any state) population done that enmass then clowns r us driving senators would be driving senators of the Holden variety rather than being paid by the Australian taxpayer.......It seems to me that we need to remove the ability of 2 men and a dog to end up validly nominating for the senate election, and by reducing the contenders down to a reasonable number do away with voting above the line. In doing so numbering say 1 to 12 is quite achievable, rather than 1 to 100, 90 of which you probably have never heard of, nor the tinpot org they represent...

 

Andy

The way to fix it would be to allow preferences above the line with the votes contained to only those groups selected. Given that even the 50th preference matters we should perhaps require prefs up to,say, a minimum of 42 (twice the number to be elected) below the line or require prefs of up to , say, a minimum of 6 groups above the line. Voters would be free to continue voting beyond the minimum.

I like the idea of 2 men and a dog nominating because we end up with some interesting candidates. Sure we end up with some clowns like Harridine but we also end up with some good ones like Xenophon. Voting a party ticket will generally deliver a mass of party hacks and drones.