The proposal goes like this:

We abolish electorates for good and instead members represent the entire State as one electorate (much like the Senate). At election time, the voters vote for the political party of their choice in closed-lists. For e.g.

1) ALP

2) Liberal

3) National

And so forth..

All voters need to do is mark which party they vote for.

When counting the votes, all votes are tallied on a nationwide scale. Whichever party receives and at least 40% of the nationwide vote AND receives a plurality of votes will automatically gain 90 seats (of 150) in the House of Reps, which seats will be allocated in each State
respectively.

This means that the majority party will gain 'additional seats' at the expense of other parties.

What is the benefit of this?

The biggest benefit is that it ensures that the majority party will always have a comfortable majority in the House of Reps and prevents hung parliaments or minority governments.

Hmm ... like the US system "lite"?

I think there is merit in some change taking place.

Captain Nemo wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 11:13am:

Hmm ... like the US system "lite"? I think there is merit in some change taking place.

If you're referring to the electoral college, then yes in a similar sense.

Terrible idea.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 11:28am:

Terrible idea.

ditto...

get rid of preference...


now we sit and wait for the senate members to crawl across the line..with 3rd or 4th choices.....


bahhh humbug!

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 11:28am:

Terrible idea.

So, do you believe that minority governments and hung parliaments are conducive to stability and good governance?

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 11:46am:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 11:28am: Terrible idea. So, do you believe that minority governments and hung parliaments are conducive to stability and good governance?

Yes. This is done deliberately to reduce corruption and drift towards dictatorship. You are mistaking stability of the parliament for stable governance. Giving a minority government carte blanch for major reform makes unstable governance inevitable, like in the US.

Get rid of preferencing. It’s a farce that gives is morons who win seats regardless of the fact another candidate wins thousands more votes than them.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 12:18pm:

Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 11:46am: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 11:28am: Terrible idea. So, do you believe that minority governments and hung parliaments are conducive to stability and good governance? Yes. This is done deliberately to reduce corruption and drift towards dictatorship. You are mistaking stability of the parliament for stable governance. Giving a minority government carte blanch for major reform makes unstable governance inevitable, like in the US.

Can you give an example in Australia of where majority governments (when they have been achieved) have led to greater corruption and a drift toward dictatorship?

Can you also explain how a minority government in the House of Reps can have carte blanche for major reform when it has to content with an equally powerful upper House that is not controlled by that minority government?

Can you also explain how a minority government with 'carte blanche' for major reform can throw someone in jail for 'speaking their mind' when it has no power to do so?

I cannot give you an example from Australia because the system works fairly well at preventing it from happening. If your argument is that the system might continue to function as you make it worse, I will give you that, but it is still a terrible idea. Also, there is no guarantee, as you suggest, that they would not be able to get legislation through the senate also.

Your proposal is also fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 12:35pm:

I cannot give you an example from Australia because the system works fairly well at preventing it from happening. If your argument is that the system might continue to function as you make it worse, I will give you that, but it is still a terrible idea. Also, there is no guarantee, as you suggest, that they would not be able to get legislation through the senate also. Your proposal is also fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power.

So, you think the system is fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power but you can't give me an example of how it would be 'fundamentally democratic' and an arbitrary allocation of power?

Is this similar to the argument that you make when you say that 'all Muslims support terrorism' but can't give examples of 'all Muslims who support terrorism?'

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:35pm: I cannot give you an example from Australia because the system works fairly well at preventing it from happening. If your argument is that the system might continue to function as you make it worse, I will give you that, but it is still a terrible idea. Also, there is no guarantee, as you suggest, that they would not be able to get legislation through the senate also. Your proposal is also fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power. So, you think the system is fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power but you can't give me an example of how it would be 'fundamentally democratic' and an arbitrary allocation of power? Is this similar to the argument that you make when you say that 'all Muslims support terrorism' but can't give examples of 'all Muslims who support terrorism?'

Correct. I cannot give any examples from Australia's past of how stupid your idea is. It is unprecedented.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 1:01pm:

Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:54pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:35pm: I cannot give you an example from Australia because the system works fairly well at preventing it from happening. If your argument is that the system might continue to function as you make it worse, I will give you that, but it is still a terrible idea. Also, there is no guarantee, as you suggest, that they would not be able to get legislation through the senate also. Your proposal is also fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power. So, you think the system is fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power but you can't give me an example of how it would be 'fundamentally democratic' and an arbitrary allocation of power? Is this similar to the argument that you make when you say that 'all Muslims support terrorism' but can't give examples of 'all Muslims who support terrorism?' Correct. I cannot give any examples from Australia's past of how stupid your idea is. It is unprecedented.

Having one party control the House of Reps is not unprecedented. In fact, the opposite is only a recent phenomenon.

Edit: FD, if you're implying that majority government in a parliamentary system is undemocratic, then perhaps you would support have a proportional representation in the House of Reps?? Given that no party has achieved a %50+1 in the majority of elections (at least recently) this would essentially mean that we would have a coalition government, which would, according to you, be better for democracy.

If you accept the effectiveness of the parliamentary system of government, then the way that it's most effective if one party controls the House of Reps in order to implement its agenda.

a stupid idea. The senate was designed that way for a reason.
People crying for changes to the senate just so they can ram their ideas through should probably not be in govt. in the first place.

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 1:26pm:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 1:01pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:54pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:35pm: I cannot give you an example from Australia because the system works fairly well at preventing it from happening. If your argument is that the system might continue to function as you make it worse, I will give you that, but it is still a terrible idea. Also, there is no guarantee, as you suggest, that they would not be able to get legislation through the senate also. Your proposal is also fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power. So, you think the system is fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power but you can't give me an example of how it would be 'fundamentally democratic' and an arbitrary allocation of power? Is this similar to the argument that you make when you say that 'all Muslims support terrorism' but can't give examples of 'all Muslims who support terrorism?' Correct. I cannot give any examples from Australia's past of how stupid your idea is. It is unprecedented. Having one party control the House of Reps is not unprecedented. In fact, the opposite is only a recent phenomenon. Edit: FD, if you're implying that majority government in a parliamentary system is undemocratic, then perhaps you would support have a proportional representation in the House of Reps?? Given that no party has achieved a %50+1 in the majority of elections (at least recently) this would essentially mean that we would have a coalition government, which would, according to you, be better for democracy. If you accept the effectiveness of the parliamentary system of government, then the way that it's most effective if one party controls the House of Reps in order to implement its agenda.

Even if 60% of the voting public oppose that agenda?

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 1:26pm:

If you accept the effectiveness of the parliamentary system of government, then the way that it's most effective if one party controls the House of Reps in order to implement its agenda.

No. Then we get bad laws getting passed too often. The Senate would be the only defence against bad laws and as we have seen recently, the Senate will tend to wave through bad legislation. Worse, the governing party gets a majority in both houses. Last time that happened, we got Workchoices.

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 11:02am:

The proposal goes like this: We abolish electorates for good and instead members represent the entire State as one electorate (much like the Senate). At election time, the voters vote for the political party of their choice in closed-lists. For e.g. 1) ALP 2) Liberal 3) National And so forth.. All voters need to do is mark which party they vote for. When counting the votes, all votes are tallied on a nationwide scale. Whichever party receives and at least 40% of the nationwide vote AND receives a plurality of votes will automatically gain 90 seats (of 150) in the House of Reps, which seats will be allocated in each State respectively.

Won't work as designed. It may tend to entrench one party in power if one major party can consistently get 40% of the vote and the other does not.

A better alternative is the Parliament of New Zealand. They use mixed member proportional: members in local seats, topped up from party lists to get proportional representation. A party needs to win one local seat or get 5% of the list vote to get representation.

Every NZ government since they introduced MMP has been a coalition, often negotiated after the fact. It may seem unstable, yet it works. Coalitions are more stable if they don't propose bad legislation, so it acts to moderate laws. Extremist crap doesn't flourish.

An Australian version might abolish 40% of the local seats in each state and replace them with statewide party lists so the number of seats remains the same. The Constitution only specifies the apportionment of seats among the states but does not mandate any particular method of filling those seats.

The disadvantage of MMP or any other similar form of proportional representation is it would allow fringe parties to be elected. This is why such systems have a minimum threshold for election, such as the 5% minimum that is used in New Zealand. In practice, a 5% threshold would only come into play for states with 20 seats or more: NSW, Victoria and Queensland.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 3:05pm:

Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 1:26pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 1:01pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:54pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:35pm: I cannot give you an example from Australia because the system works fairly well at preventing it from happening. If your argument is that the system might continue to function as you make it worse, I will give you that, but it is still a terrible idea. Also, there is no guarantee, as you suggest, that they would not be able to get legislation through the senate also. Your proposal is also fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power. So, you think the system is fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power but you can't give me an example of how it would be 'fundamentally democratic' and an arbitrary allocation of power? Is this similar to the argument that you make when you say that 'all Muslims support terrorism' but can't give examples of 'all Muslims who support terrorism?' Correct. I cannot give any examples from Australia's past of how stupid your idea is. It is unprecedented. Having one party control the House of Reps is not unprecedented. In fact, the opposite is only a recent phenomenon. Edit: FD, if you're implying that majority government in a parliamentary system is undemocratic, then perhaps you would support have a proportional representation in the House of Reps?? Given that no party has achieved a %50+1 in the majority of elections (at least recently) this would essentially mean that we would have a coalition government, which would, according to you, be better for democracy. If you accept the effectiveness of the parliamentary system of government, then the way that it's most effective if one party controls the House of Reps in order to implement its agenda. Even if 60% of the voting public oppose that agenda?

Correct, because that's how the system works.

By the way, as it is, a party can gain a majority with less than 50% of the vote, so I don't know why your outrage is limited to my proposal and not to single-member electorates in general?

Bam wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 4:29pm:

Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 1:26pm: If you accept the effectiveness of the parliamentary system of government, then the way that it's most effective if one party controls the House of Reps in order to implement its agenda. No. Then we get bad laws getting passed too often. The Senate would be the only defence against bad laws and as we have seen recently, the Senate will tend to wave through bad legislation. Worse, the governing party gets a majority in both houses. Last time that happened, we got Workchoices.

So, for the majority of Australia's political history where most elections have produced a parliamentary majority by one party, we have had an insanely bad system of government??

Bam wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 4:47pm:

Won't work as designed. It may tend to entrench one party in power if one major party can consistently get 40% of the vote and the other does not.

That's up to the people to decide. If 40% of the electorate continue electing the same party, then that's up to the electorate.

John Smith wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 1:40pm:

a stupid idea. The senate was designed that way for a reason. People crying for changes to the senate just so they can ram their ideas through should probably not be in govt. in the first place.

My proposal targets the House of Reps, not the Senate.

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 7:25pm:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 3:05pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 1:26pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 1:01pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:54pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:35pm: I cannot give you an example from Australia because the system works fairly well at preventing it from happening. If your argument is that the system might continue to function as you make it worse, I will give you that, but it is still a terrible idea. Also, there is no guarantee, as you suggest, that they would not be able to get legislation through the senate also. Your proposal is also fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power. So, you think the system is fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power but you can't give me an example of how it would be 'fundamentally democratic' and an arbitrary allocation of power? Is this similar to the argument that you make when you say that 'all Muslims support terrorism' but can't give examples of 'all Muslims who support terrorism?' Correct. I cannot give any examples from Australia's past of how stupid your idea is. It is unprecedented. Having one party control the House of Reps is not unprecedented. In fact, the opposite is only a recent phenomenon. Edit: FD, if you're implying that majority government in a parliamentary system is undemocratic, then perhaps you would support have a proportional representation in the House of Reps?? Given that no party has achieved a %50+1 in the majority of elections (at least recently) this would essentially mean that we would have a coalition government, which would, according to you, be better for democracy. If you accept the effectiveness of the parliamentary system of government, then the way that it's most effective if one party controls the House of Reps in order to implement its agenda. Even if 60% of the voting public oppose that agenda? Correct, because that's how the system works. By the way, as it is, a party can gain a majority with less than 50% of the vote, so I don't know why your outrage is limited to my proposal and not to single-member electorates in general?

You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours. You can come up with excuses and justifications all day, but you cannot come up with a good reason.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 7:44pm:

You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours.

Incorrect, I am simply stating that if you're against my proposal then you're essentially against our entire system of government.

we have one of the most stable, successful systems of government in the world. Why change it?


you seem to have a desire to change everything Auggie. Don't fix what isn't broke.

John Smith wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 8:04pm:

we have one of the most stable, successful systems of government in the world. Why change it? you seem to have a desire to change everything Auggie. Don't fix what isn't broke.

I'm not changing anything, JS. I'm simply improving on an existing system.

I would disagree that we have stability - no PM has completed a full term in government since 2007. I'd hardly call that stable or even successful.

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 8:13pm:

John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 8:04pm: we have one of the most stable, successful systems of government in the world. Why change it? you seem to have a desire to change everything Auggie. Don't fix what isn't broke. I'm not changing anything, JS. I'm simply improving on an existing system. I would disagree that we have stability - no PM has completed a full term in government since 2007. I'd hardly call that stable or even successful.

so you don't want to change thing? Then why the need for this thread?

as to your second point, we don't vote for pm's auggie .... but that is now a moot point,  I believe that problem has now taken care of itself.

John Smith wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 8:16pm:

Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 8:13pm: John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 8:04pm: we have one of the most stable, successful systems of government in the world. Why change it? you seem to have a desire to change everything Auggie. Don't fix what isn't broke. I'm not changing anything, JS. I'm simply improving on an existing system. I would disagree that we have stability - no PM has completed a full term in government since 2007. I'd hardly call that stable or even successful. so you don't want to change thing? Then why the need for this thread? as to your second point, we don't vote for pm's auggie .... but that is now a moot point,  I believe that problem has now taken care of itself.

Because I'm trying to improve it.

As to the second point, exactly we vote for the party to form government, so why not let them form government??

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 8:17pm:

Because I'm trying to improve it.

by changing it.



Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 8:17pm:

As to the second point, exactly we vote for the party to form government, so why not let them form government??

no, we vote for our local representatives to represent us in parliament no matter who forms government.

John Smith wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 8:25pm:

Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 8:17pm: Because I'm trying to improve it. by changing it. Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 8:17pm: As to the second point, exactly we vote for the party to form government, so why not let them form government?? no, we vote for our local representatives to represent us in parliament no matter who forms government.

Coincidentally then they just happen to be, in the majority of cases, a member of a political party who is either part of the government or who isn't, and coincidentally, vote along party lines...

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 7:50pm:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:44pm: You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours. Incorrect, I am simply stating that if you're against my proposal then you're essentially against our entire system of government.

You cannot even be honest about what you are saying. You claim to be improving the system, but all you are doing is discarding the good bits and turning the flaws into the basis of a new, truly terrible system.

You can come up with excuses and justifications all day, but you cannot come up with a good reason. It's and entirely arbitrary change that could only make things worse. I cannot figure out why you want it or why you are carrying on the way you do in response to criticism. You don't know why you are improving the system. You don't know how your proposal makes the system any better. You don't know what better even is. You spent about 5 seconds coming up with a scheme and want us to explain everything to you.

Sounds dangerous - no party is guaranteed a comfortable majority so as to enforce its every ideological whim - that's why we have the system we have... including the senate - to keep check on the bastards in their fantasies...

You are demanding a de facto absolute mandate for the party in power.... seems you forget they are in power in Parliament - and nowhere else...

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 9:39pm:

Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:44pm: You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours. Incorrect, I am simply stating that if you're against my proposal then you're essentially against our entire system of government. You cannot even be honest about what you are saying. You claim to be improving the system, but all you are doing is discarding the good bits and turning the flaws into the basis of a new, truly terrible system. You can come up with excuses and justifications all day, but you cannot come up with a good reason. It's and entirely arbitrary change that could only make things worse. I cannot figure out why you want it or why you are carrying on the way you do in response to criticism. You don't know why you are improving the system. You don't know how your proposal makes the system any better. You don't know what better even is. You spent about 5 seconds coming up with a scheme and want us to explain everything to you.

It's a better system because it's creates stability.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 10:21pm:

Sounds dangerous - no party is guaranteed a comfortable majority so as to enforce its every ideological whim - that's why we have the system we have... including the senate - to keep check on the bastards in their fantasies... You are demanding a de facto absolute mandate for the party in power.... seems you forget they are in power in Parliament - and nowhere else...

So, for most of our political history when one political party has controlled a majority of seats has been completely wrong?

Auggie wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 7:16pm:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 9:39pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:44pm: You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours. Incorrect, I am simply stating that if you're against my proposal then you're essentially against our entire system of government. You cannot even be honest about what you are saying. You claim to be improving the system, but all you are doing is discarding the good bits and turning the flaws into the basis of a new, truly terrible system. You can come up with excuses and justifications all day, but you cannot come up with a good reason. It's and entirely arbitrary change that could only make things worse. I cannot figure out why you want it or why you are carrying on the way you do in response to criticism. You don't know why you are improving the system. You don't know how your proposal makes the system any better. You don't know what better even is. You spent about 5 seconds coming up with a scheme and want us to explain everything to you. It's a better system because it's creates stability.

It does the exact opposite. It will hand parliamentary majorities to alternating ends of the political spectrum who only have support of 40% of the public. It randomly discards the will of the people and hands out seats based on a whimsical, arbitrary criteria. It would also reintroduce an incentive for strategic voting.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 7:25pm:

Auggie wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 7:16pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 9:39pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:44pm: You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours. Incorrect, I am simply stating that if you're against my proposal then you're essentially against our entire system of government. You cannot even be honest about what you are saying. You claim to be improving the system, but all you are doing is discarding the good bits and turning the flaws into the basis of a new, truly terrible system. You can come up with excuses and justifications all day, but you cannot come up with a good reason. It's and entirely arbitrary change that could only make things worse. I cannot figure out why you want it or why you are carrying on the way you do in response to criticism. You don't know why you are improving the system. You don't know how your proposal makes the system any better. You don't know what better even is. You spent about 5 seconds coming up with a scheme and want us to explain everything to you. It's a better system because it's creates stability. It does the exact opposite. It will hand parliamentary majorities to alternating ends of the political spectrum who only have support of 40% of the public. It randomly discards the will of the people and hands out seats based on a whimsical, arbitrary criteria. It would also reintroduce an incentive for strategic voting.

40% of the electorate is hardly 'alternating ends of the political spectrum'. Both Labor and Liberal are capable of meeting the 40% criteria very easily. And if a third party were to ever gain the support of 40% of the electorate then they would gain a majority of the seats.

Edit: and it creates stability because that party will have a majority in the House of Reps. This will create certainly for the party in power and probably reduce revolving Prime Ministers.

Auggie wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 7:39pm:

freediver wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 7:25pm: Auggie wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 7:16pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 9:39pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:44pm: You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours. Incorrect, I am simply stating that if you're against my proposal then you're essentially against our entire system of government. You cannot even be honest about what you are saying. You claim to be improving the system, but all you are doing is discarding the good bits and turning the flaws into the basis of a new, truly terrible system. You can come up with excuses and justifications all day, but you cannot come up with a good reason. It's and entirely arbitrary change that could only make things worse. I cannot figure out why you want it or why you are carrying on the way you do in response to criticism. You don't know why you are improving the system. You don't know how your proposal makes the system any better. You don't know what better even is. You spent about 5 seconds coming up with a scheme and want us to explain everything to you. It's a better system because it's creates stability. It does the exact opposite. It will hand parliamentary majorities to alternating ends of the political spectrum who only have support of 40% of the public. It randomly discards the will of the people and hands out seats based on a whimsical, arbitrary criteria. It would also reintroduce an incentive for strategic voting. 40% of the electorate is hardly 'alternating ends of the political spectrum'. Both Labor and Liberal are capable of meeting the 40% criteria very easily. And if a third party were to ever gain the support of 40% of the electorate then they would gain a majority of the seats. Edit: and it creates stability because that party will have a majority in the House of Reps. This will create certainly for the party in power and probably reduce revolving Prime Ministers.

That is not stability Auggie. It is the opposite.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 7:54pm:

Auggie wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 7:39pm: freediver wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 7:25pm: Auggie wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 7:16pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 9:39pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:44pm: You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours. Incorrect, I am simply stating that if you're against my proposal then you're essentially against our entire system of government. You cannot even be honest about what you are saying. You claim to be improving the system, but all you are doing is discarding the good bits and turning the flaws into the basis of a new, truly terrible system. You can come up with excuses and justifications all day, but you cannot come up with a good reason. It's and entirely arbitrary change that could only make things worse. I cannot figure out why you want it or why you are carrying on the way you do in response to criticism. You don't know why you are improving the system. You don't know how your proposal makes the system any better. You don't know what better even is. You spent about 5 seconds coming up with a scheme and want us to explain everything to you. It's a better system because it's creates stability. It does the exact opposite. It will hand parliamentary majorities to alternating ends of the political spectrum who only have support of 40% of the public. It randomly discards the will of the people and hands out seats based on a whimsical, arbitrary criteria. It would also reintroduce an incentive for strategic voting. 40% of the electorate is hardly 'alternating ends of the political spectrum'. Both Labor and Liberal are capable of meeting the 40% criteria very easily. And if a third party were to ever gain the support of 40% of the electorate then they would gain a majority of the seats. Edit: and it creates stability because that party will have a majority in the House of Reps. This will create certainly for the party in power and probably reduce revolving Prime Ministers. That is not stability Auggie. It is the opposite.

How is that not stability?

Are you implying that the Liberals who have 74 seats in the House of Reps who have to rely on at least 3 independents is more stable that the Liberals having 90 seats in the House of Reps?

Auggie, you are confusing parliamentary stability with stable government. They are not the same thing. It would really help if you would actually explain what you are trying to achieve rather than expecting people to guess.

You are completely missing the point of parliamentary democracy. It is not to make the jobs of politicians simple and easy with clear job descriptions. It is to give the public the legislation they deserve based on a mandate of majority support.

Tell us which to the following two scenarios are more stable in real terms:

A) Minority government with several changes in PM and shifting coalitions to maintain a majority of seats in the lower house. No meaningful legislation actually gets passed.

B) Majority government by a party with only 40% support. They repeal all the legislation introduced by the previous undeserved majority government because it had no public mandate, then introduce their own alternative legislation that is also without public mandate. Everyone can see it coming and is certain it will happen. Next election the opposing party changes it all back again. People stop voting for minor parties to try to ensure their side of politics hits the 40% mark and the other side does not get a plurality in all states.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 8:06pm:

B) Majority government by a party with only 40% support. They repeal all the legislation introduced by the previous undeserved majority government because it had no public mandate, then introduce their own alternative legislation that is also without public mandate. Everyone can see it coming and is certain it will happen. Next election the opposing party changes it all back again. People stop voting for minor parties to try to ensure their side of politics hits the 40% mark and the other side does not get a plurality in all states.

This is more stable.

You are completely missing the point of parliamentary democracy. It is not to make the jobs of politicians simple and easy with clear job descriptions. It is to give the public the legislation they deserve based on a mandate of majority support.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 8:09pm:

You are completely missing the point of parliamentary democracy. It is not to make the jobs of politicians simple and easy with clear job descriptions. It is to give the public the legislation they deserve based on a mandate of majority support.

Wrong. The point of parliamentary democracy is that the government is the party or coalition that controls a majority in the lower House.

Auggie wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 8:12pm:

freediver wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 8:09pm: You are completely missing the point of parliamentary democracy. It is not to make the jobs of politicians simple and easy with clear job descriptions. It is to give the public the legislation they deserve based on a mandate of majority support. Wrong. The point of parliamentary democracy is that the government is the party or coalition that controls a majority in the lower House.

disagree.

John Smith wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

Auggie wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 8:12pm: freediver wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 8:09pm: You are completely missing the point of parliamentary democracy. It is not to make the jobs of politicians simple and easy with clear job descriptions. It is to give the public the legislation they deserve based on a mandate of majority support. Wrong. The point of parliamentary democracy is that the government is the party or coalition that controls a majority in the lower House. disagree.

Those are the facts.

Auggie, the voters and the democracy are not there to serve the politicians. You got it backwards. You have been so bamboozled by the intense media coverage of changing PM's and shifting coalitions between and within parties that you have mistaken the means to an end for the end itself. None of that really matters. The legislation we end up with does. Let the politicians live in disarray so that we have stable law, not the other way round.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Get rid of preferencing. It’s a farce that gives is morons who win seats regardless of the fact another candidate wins thousands more votes than them.

Totally agree... if your policies are not popular enough for you to gain a large enough vote - they should be reserved for negotiation later and 'lobbying' - not handed an automatic credence by being a 'preference' vote.

Auggie wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 7:16pm:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 9:39pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:44pm: You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours. Incorrect, I am simply stating that if you're against my proposal then you're essentially against our entire system of government. You cannot even be honest about what you are saying. You claim to be improving the system, but all you are doing is discarding the good bits and turning the flaws into the basis of a new, truly terrible system. You can come up with excuses and justifications all day, but you cannot come up with a good reason. It's and entirely arbitrary change that could only make things worse. I cannot figure out why you want it or why you are carrying on the way you do in response to criticism. You don't know why you are improving the system. You don't know how your proposal makes the system any better. You don't know what better even is. You spent about 5 seconds coming up with a scheme and want us to explain everything to you. It's a better system because it's creates stability.

I would prefer instability to absolute control by any of our current parties... chaos is the normal state of being - your kind of order is Nazism and Stalinism...

We, the PEOPLE that once were, do not want one party to have absolute control as it did in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia...

You're a foreigner, Augie - you do not understand democracy as it is exercised HERE.

Would you rather a Singaporean style of 'democracy' in which the rich get to stand and get the votes, and there are draconian punishments for silly 'infringements' and so forth, and in which the rich only use political position for self-advancement and not as service to the people?

You, from past posts, are an advocate of market capitalism - that never-ending Darwinian fist fight.... and you wish to extend that to the political sphere.

I must inform you - politics has no place in business - and business has NO place in politics.

NOBODY in his/her right mind wants some party dedicated to market capitalism in total control... as our recent history has shown, even with the rather watered-down approach to market capitalism of the LNP.

Softly softly may catchee Tiger - but not HERE, son.  Australians are not going to stand by and watch a takeover of our entire political and economic life by market capitalists.... get used to the idea.  Boiling Australian frogs does not work - they're too smart, and the tiny amount of actual violence in the recent election shows an underlying discontent with the entire political process.

Watch this space when the 'government' sets out on its market capitalism sellout....

It's appalling to see, already, that the media are spruiking some 'rise in the housing market' following the election...what a farken disaster for Australia and Australians.  That market needs to crash and be replaced by one that actually benefits the nation.

2019 - Year Of Decision..... make or break time in many ways.... I expect to see violence enter politics...... unless the government toes the line properly....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 11:45pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:24pm: Get rid of preferencing. It’s a farce that gives is morons who win seats regardless of the fact another candidate wins thousands more votes than them. Totally agree... if your policies are not popular enough for you to gain a large enough vote - they should be reserved for negotiation later and 'lobbying' - not handed an automatic credence by being a 'preference' vote.

So how do you suggest we get rid of preference voting without voting in policies that only have minority support?

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 12:20pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 11:45pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:24pm: Get rid of preferencing. It’s a farce that gives is morons who win seats regardless of the fact another candidate wins thousands more votes than them. Totally agree... if your policies are not popular enough for you to gain a large enough vote - they should be reserved for negotiation later and 'lobbying' - not handed an automatic credence by being a 'preference' vote. So how do you suggest we get rid of preference voting without voting in policies that only have minority support?

Give Power to the 'majority' of Votes.
x4 million roughly voted for LNP.
x8 million roughly voted for everyone else.

...who said Australian Politics can't be a 'Team Effort'?
It's all about 'mateship' and working 'together' no? :-?

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 12:20pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 11:45pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:24pm: Get rid of preferencing. It’s a farce that gives is morons who win seats regardless of the fact another candidate wins thousands more votes than them. Totally agree... if your policies are not popular enough for you to gain a large enough vote - they should be reserved for negotiation later and 'lobbying' - not handed an automatic credence by being a 'preference' vote. So how do you suggest we get rid of preference voting without voting in policies that only have minority support?

First past the post is automatically majority ...

No guarantee that the entire mix of policy is going to be solid through and through - our politicians love to offer us a mix of good and evil so that we are forced to swallow some sh1t with our steak and lobster.  They trade off some good for some evil - what a ridiculous way to try to manage a country.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 12:29pm:

freediver wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 12:20pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 11:45pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 12:24pm: Get rid of preferencing. It’s a farce that gives is morons who win seats regardless of the fact another candidate wins thousands more votes than them. Totally agree... if your policies are not popular enough for you to gain a large enough vote - they should be reserved for negotiation later and 'lobbying' - not handed an automatic credence by being a 'preference' vote. So how do you suggest we get rid of preference voting without voting in policies that only have minority support? First past the post is automatically majority ... No guarantee that the entire mix of policy is going to be solid through and through - our politicians love to offer us a mix of good and evil so that we are forced to swallow some sh1t with our steak and lobster.  They trade off some good for some evil - what a ridiculous way to try to manage a country.

You got it backwards.

FPTP is by definition minority. If there are 10 candidates, you can win with as little as 10% of the vote.

Preferential voting is by definition majority rule. If the LNP get 51% of the TPP vote, that means the majority of the population prefer them over Labor.

You appear to be assuming that anyone who ranks a minor party first does not have a valid opinion on whether Labor or Liberal should form government. They do. All that FPTP voting would achieve is to kill off the minor parties because people would vote along TPP lines rather than for minor parties, regardless of who they actually prefer. And that would mean the two major parties can more easily get away with forcing unpopular policies on the public at the behest of lobbyists, donors and vested interests.

The outcome of what you suggest would be the exact opposite of what you claim.

Two Party system is archaic, stupid and restrictive.
Nothing but a Coin Flip.  ::)

Jasin wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 12:46pm:

Two Party system is archaic, stupid and restrictive. Nothing but a Coin Flip.  ::)

It is not a "system". It is a description of who people vote for. We have more than two parties.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 12:49pm:

Jasin wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 12:46pm: Two Party system is archaic, stupid and restrictive. Nothing but a Coin Flip.  ::) It is not a "system". It is a description of who people vote for. We have more than two parties.

And those 'other' parties are just absorbed in many ways -by those 'Two Parties'.

Like I said - the 'majority' of Voters DID NOT vote for the LNP.

Why can't Australian Politics be a 'collective' effort?
You can have 'Team' Sports, why not Team Politics? Why does it just have to be 'One' (from Two) like the UK/USA?

Power to the People, not the Individual.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 11:55pm:

Auggie wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 7:16pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 9:39pm: Auggie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:50pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 7:44pm: You are turning a possible flaw in the current system into the basis of yours. Incorrect, I am simply stating that if you're against my proposal then you're essentially against our entire system of government. You cannot even be honest about what you are saying. You claim to be improving the system, but all you are doing is discarding the good bits and turning the flaws into the basis of a new, truly terrible system. You can come up with excuses and justifications all day, but you cannot come up with a good reason. It's and entirely arbitrary change that could only make things worse. I cannot figure out why you want it or why you are carrying on the way you do in response to criticism. You don't know why you are improving the system. You don't know how your proposal makes the system any better. You don't know what better even is. You spent about 5 seconds coming up with a scheme and want us to explain everything to you. It's a better system because it's creates stability. I would prefer instability to absolute control by any of our current parties... chaos is the normal state of being - your kind of order is Nazism and Stalinism... We, the PEOPLE that once were, do not want one party to have absolute control as it did in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia... You're a foreigner, Augie - you do not understand democracy as it is exercised HERE. Would you rather a Singaporean style of 'democracy' in which the rich get to stand and get the votes, and there are draconian punishments for silly 'infringements' and so forth, and in which the rich only use political position for self-advancement and not as service to the people? You, from past posts, are an advocate of market capitalism - that never-ending Darwinian fist fight.... and you wish to extend that to the political sphere. I must inform you - politics has no place in business - and business has NO place in politics. NOBODY in his/her right mind wants some party dedicated to market capitalism in total control... as our recent history has shown, even with the rather watered-down approach to market capitalism of the LNP. Softly softly may catchee Tiger - but not HERE, son.  Australians are not going to stand by and watch a takeover of our entire political and economic life by market capitalists.... get used to the idea.  Boiling Australian frogs does not work - they're too smart, and the tiny amount of actual violence in the recent election shows an underlying discontent with the entire political process. Watch this space when the 'government' sets out on its market capitalism sellout.... It's appalling to see, already, that the media are spruiking some 'rise in the housing market' following the election...what a farken disaster for Australia and Australians.  That market needs to crash and be replaced by one that actually benefits the nation. 2019 - Year Of Decision..... make or break time in many ways.... I expect to see violence enter politics...... unless the government toes the line properly....

So, for most of our history when one party has controlled the House of Reps, you're saying that this has been wrong??

Second of all, the government is the party which controls the majority of seats in the House of Reps. That's what the system is, if you don't like it then join in drafting a new Constitution for a new Australian Republic.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 12:41pm:

FPTP is by definition minority. If there are 10 candidates, you can win with as little as 10% of the vote.

Which actually makes it easier for minority parties to be elected since they would need to swing a small percentage of voters in order to win the seat.

FPTP is a better system in my view. Whoever wins the most votes is elected.

Auggie wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 6:21pm:

freediver wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 12:41pm: FPTP is by definition minority. If there are 10 candidates, you can win with as little as 10% of the vote. Which actually makes it easier for minority parties to be elected since they would need to swing a small percentage of voters in order to win the seat. FPTP is a better system in my view. Whoever wins the most votes is elected.

So if party A gets 10% of the vote, you are happy for them to win, even if 90% of the population prefer party B?

Do you understand how FPTP destroys minor parties? Are you happy for strategic voting to eliminate the minor parties because people try to make up for the flaws of FPTP voting?

Have you give up on your other reform idea because you realise voters are not there to make life easy for politicians?

The Hillary mob called for electoral reform when they lost.

Now the Billary crowd are doing the same.

Both the LNP and Labor have short or very selective memories when it comes to whinging about the other side using dirty tricks.

Auggie wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 6:21pm:

freediver wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 12:41pm: FPTP is by definition minority. If there are 10 candidates, you can win with as little as 10% of the vote. Which actually makes it easier for minority parties to be elected since they would need to swing a small percentage of voters in order to win the seat. FPTP is a better system in my view. Whoever wins the most votes is elected.

MY point is those minor parties would NOT get that swing with a host of unpleasant policies..... if they have the right mix of policies, they will get the votes... and not be over-run by preferences to the majors, which is one of the bug-bears of our current system.

Auggie wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 6:18pm:

So, for most of our history when one party has controlled the House of Reps, you're saying that this has been wrong?? Second of all, the government is the party which controls the majority of seats in the House of Reps. That's what the system is, if you don't like it then join in drafting a new Constitution for a new Australian Republic.

I said Absolute Control - as thing stand, unlike your approach, we have a check and balance system in place with the Senate for a start, then the courts, then the people...  If you hand to the incumbent party absolute power, there are no checks and balances.

That is why I argue that there is NO absolute mandate.... nor should there be.  We do NOT want a Nazi or Stalinist government here.... which, even if they do not know it, is precisely the form of government in many Asian countries.... I chose Singapore as an example...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 10:41pm:

Auggie wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 6:18pm: So, for most of our history when one party has controlled the House of Reps, you're saying that this has been wrong?? Second of all, the government is the party which controls the majority of seats in the House of Reps. That's what the system is, if you don't like it then join in drafting a new Constitution for a new Australian Republic. I said Absolute Control - as thing stand, unlike your approach, we have a check and balance system in place with the Senate for a start, then the courts, then the people...  If you hand to the incumbent party absolute power, there are no checks and balances. That is why I argue that there is NO absolute mandate.... nor should there be.  We do NOT want a Nazi or Stalinist government here.... which, even if they do not know it, is precisely the form of government in many Asian countries.... I chose Singapore as an example...

Clearly you can't read.

I was talking about the House of Reps only. The Senate would continue to function as per now.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 7:09pm:

Auggie wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 6:21pm: freediver wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 12:41pm: FPTP is by definition minority. If there are 10 candidates, you can win with as little as 10% of the vote. Which actually makes it easier for minority parties to be elected since they would need to swing a small percentage of voters in order to win the seat. FPTP is a better system in my view. Whoever wins the most votes is elected. So if party A gets 10% of the vote, you are happy for them to win, even if 90% of the population prefer party B? Do you understand how FPTP destroys minor parties? Are you happy for strategic voting to eliminate the minor parties because people try to make up for the flaws of FPTP voting? Have you give up on your other reform idea because you realise voters are not there to make life easy for politicians?

You're not living in the real world. The fact is that we have an oligarchic system of government. The best way to make this system work is to accept that reality and be done with it.

Auggie wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 6:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 7:09pm: Auggie wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 6:21pm: freediver wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 12:41pm: FPTP is by definition minority. If there are 10 candidates, you can win with as little as 10% of the vote. Which actually makes it easier for minority parties to be elected since they would need to swing a small percentage of voters in order to win the seat. FPTP is a better system in my view. Whoever wins the most votes is elected. So if party A gets 10% of the vote, you are happy for them to win, even if 90% of the population prefer party B? Do you understand how FPTP destroys minor parties? Are you happy for strategic voting to eliminate the minor parties because people try to make up for the flaws of FPTP voting? Have you give up on your other reform idea because you realise voters are not there to make life easy for politicians? You're not living in the real world. The fact is that we have an oligarchic system of government. The best way to make this system work is to accept that reality and be done with it.

Are you suggesting that strategic voting under FPTP does not have a real world impact on minor parties?