Australian Politics Forum - Fixed four year terms

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #30 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:11pm

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 4:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 3:55pm:

All members please note that I've have proposed such reforms on this forum before.

Seems I'm not that crazy after all.

And Aussie, no senators won't be elected for 8 years; they'll all be elected at the same time.

Does that not defeat the purpose and benefit. The split election for the senate makes it less likely that the whole of government will be made from the politics of that single snapshot of time. Reduces the likelihood of both houses being dominated by one party which is very desirable and better balanced.

I've heard the rotation argument before. Thetruth is that politicians almost always vote along party lines whether they were elected 3 years earlier or 12 years earlier.

Second, what makes the Senate multi party is it's voting system not its rotation. Under a 4/4 system, senators would be elected all at once, i.e. 12 senators instead of 6. This increases the likelihood of micro parties in he senate, which some people consider good.

Ergo, the rotation argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. If you had a house full of independents then yes the rotation would make a difference, but political parties blow that out of the water.

Quote:

I've heard the rotation argument before. Thetruth is that politicians almost always vote along party lines whether they were elected 3 years earlier or 12 years earlier.

irrespective of how many times you have heard the argument you have just shown that you didn't understand it.

Quote:

Ergo, the rotation argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Scrutiny does not mean finding arguments that support your view.

It is a fact that the mix in Australian senates have not represented the result of a single election result on the whole.

So, are you suggesting that an mp who was elected 6 years earlier would vote differently from the party of which is he or she is a member at the present time?

Second, if we elect 6 senators every 3 years according to PR voting system and then change this to electing 12 senators every four years, then it stands to reason that the Senate would be more mixed than now. 10% of 6 is less than on seat; 10% of 12 is 1 seat. So, where am I wrong?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #31 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:13pm

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:05pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Liberal & Labor are both train wrecks -

so it makes no difference 4 years or 3 years - it's still a train wreck.

Well, the people vote for them, so blame the electors. No one is forcing them to vote that way.

Compulsory voting in a two horse race ?

People can vote for other parties. That they don't is their choice. Britain and Canada have a two horse race voting system and their houses have produced minor parties.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57150
Here
Gender: male

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #32 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:37pm

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 4:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 3:55pm:

All members please note that I've have proposed such reforms on this forum before.

Seems I'm not that crazy after all.

And Aussie, no senators won't be elected for 8 years; they'll all be elected at the same time.

Does that not defeat the purpose and benefit. The split election for the senate makes it less likely that the whole of government will be made from the politics of that single snapshot of time. Reduces the likelihood of both houses being dominated by one party which is very desirable and better balanced.

I've heard the rotation argument before. Thetruth is that politicians almost always vote along party lines whether they were elected 3 years earlier or 12 years earlier.

Second, what makes the Senate multi party is it's voting system not its rotation. Under a 4/4 system, senators would be elected all at once, i.e. 12 senators instead of 6. This increases the likelihood of micro parties in he senate, which some people consider good.

Ergo, the rotation argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. If you had a house full of independents then yes the rotation would make a difference, but political parties blow that out of the water.

Quote:

I've heard the rotation argument before. Thetruth is that politicians almost always vote along party lines whether they were elected 3 years earlier or 12 years earlier.

irrespective of how many times you have heard the argument you have just shown that you didn't understand it.

Quote:

Ergo, the rotation argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Scrutiny does not mean finding arguments that support your view.

It is a fact that the mix in Australian senates have not represented the result of a single election result on the whole.

So, are you suggesting that an mp who was elected 6 years earlier would vote differently from the party of which is he or she is a member at the present time?

Second, if we elect 6 senators every 3 years according to PR voting system and then change this to electing 12 senators every four years, then it stands to reason that the Senate would be more mixed than now. 10% of 6 is less than on seat; 10% of 12 is 1 seat. So, where am I wrong?

So, are you suggesting that an mp who was elected 6 years earlier would vote differently from the party of which is he or she is a member at the present time?

That has never been an argument made by anyone. The point is that an election at a different time in different political circumstances will produce a different mix of senators.

i.e. if you hold an election today your result is a snapshot of the political climate of today. No matter if you elect 3 or 10 candidates they are all the product of todays political situation. There is a very high probability that this will not be a good representation of the political view across the term. Representing two different snapshots is better. This has proven to be the case via the test of time.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #33 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:48pm

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:37pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 4:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 3:55pm:

All members please note that I've have proposed such reforms on this forum before.

Seems I'm not that crazy after all.

And Aussie, no senators won't be elected for 8 years; they'll all be elected at the same time.

Does that not defeat the purpose and benefit. The split election for the senate makes it less likely that the whole of government will be made from the politics of that single snapshot of time. Reduces the likelihood of both houses being dominated by one party which is very desirable and better balanced.

I've heard the rotation argument before. Thetruth is that politicians almost always vote along party lines whether they were elected 3 years earlier or 12 years earlier.

Second, what makes the Senate multi party is it's voting system not its rotation. Under a 4/4 system, senators would be elected all at once, i.e. 12 senators instead of 6. This increases the likelihood of micro parties in he senate, which some people consider good.

Ergo, the rotation argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. If you had a house full of independents then yes the rotation would make a difference, but political parties blow that out of the water.

Quote:

I've heard the rotation argument before. Thetruth is that politicians almost always vote along party lines whether they were elected 3 years earlier or 12 years earlier.

irrespective of how many times you have heard the argument you have just shown that you didn't understand it.

Quote:

Ergo, the rotation argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Scrutiny does not mean finding arguments that support your view.

It is a fact that the mix in Australian senates have not represented the result of a single election result on the whole.

So, are you suggesting that an mp who was elected 6 years earlier would vote differently from the party of which is he or she is a member at the present time?

Second, if we elect 6 senators every 3 years according to PR voting system and then change this to electing 12 senators every four years, then it stands to reason that the Senate would be more mixed than now. 10% of 6 is less than on seat; 10% of 12 is 1 seat. So, where am I wrong?

So, are you suggesting that an mp who was elected 6 years earlier would vote differently from the party of which is he or she is a member at the present time?

That has never been an argument made by anyone. The point is that an election at a different time in different political circumstances will produce a different mix of senators.

i.e. if you hold an election today your result is a snapshot of the political climate of today. No matter if you elect 3 or 10 candidates they are all the product of todays political situation. There is a very high probability that this will not be a good representation of the political view across the term. Representing two different snapshots is better. This has proven to be the case via the test of time.

You're assuming that each senator is acting independently. Senators and members vote along party lines. E.g. A Greens senator is elected when the mining tax isnt popular, and then 3 years later it's popular and the Greens still support a mining tax. It doesn't matter that the senator was elected when the mining tax was unpopular, the senator would still vote in favour of a mining tax even though he was elected in a snapshot when the tax wasn't popular.

The argument I made is the one that you've been making. You're assuming that senators elected 20 years earlier are going to vote according to the political circumstances of 20 years ago. My point is that members and senators vote along party lines irrespective. So, in reality the rotation doesn't produce the desired result.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95268
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #34 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:53pm

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Liberal & Labor are both train wrecks -

so it makes no difference 4 years or 3 years - it's still a train wreck.

Well, the people vote for them, so blame the electors. No one is forcing them to vote that way.

Well they didn't in France - they voted for an outsider in Macron.

I hope someone will do the same here &
get rid of Liberal & Labor forever.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #35 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:09pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Liberal & Labor are both train wrecks -

so it makes no difference 4 years or 3 years - it's still a train wreck.

Well, the people vote for them, so blame the electors. No one is forcing them to vote that way.

Well they didn't in France - they voted for an outsider in Macron.

I hope someone will do the same here &
get rid of Liberal & Labor forever.

Yeah but you know that in France they're voting system is also a two horse race voting system. The key difference is that they elect their president and then the people usually vote for the party of the president.

What they do in France which is sth we can adopt here is that they give equal funding to each presidential candidate.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57150
Here
Gender: male

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #36 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:22pm

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:48pm:

You're assuming that each senator is acting independently. Senators and members vote along party lines. E.g. A Greens senator is elected when the mining tax isnt popular, and then 3 years later it's popular and the Greens still support a mining tax. It doesn't matter that the senator was elected when the mining tax was unpopular, the senator would still vote in favour of a mining tax even though he was elected in a snapshot when the tax wasn't popular.

The argument I made is the one that you've been making. You're assuming that senators elected 20 years earlier are going to vote according to the political circumstances of 20 years ago. My point is that members and senators vote along party lines irrespective. So, in reality the rotation doesn't produce the desired result.

You're assuming that

No I am assuming nothing just stating a fact.

Quote:

You're assuming that senators elected 20 years earlier are going to vote according to the political circumstances of 20 years ago.

No I'm not - I am saying that an election in a different period will be likely to have produced a different mix in its result, it's not rocket surgery.

i.e there will be a different mix of Labor senators a different mix of Libs and a different mix or independents and greens.

This helps to prevent a single election landslide from being enough to result in full control of both houses. It has proven to be very beneficial by producing a good balance over many decades.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95268
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #37 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:32pm

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Liberal & Labor are both train wrecks -

so it makes no difference 4 years or 3 years - it's still a train wreck.

Well, the people vote for them, so blame the electors. No one is forcing them to vote that way.

Well they didn't in France - they voted for an outsider in Macron.

I hope someone will do the same here &
get rid of Liberal & Labor forever.

Yeah but you know that in France they're voting system is also a two horse race voting system. The key difference is that they elect their president and then the people usually vote for the party of the president.

What they do in France which is sth we can adopt here is that they give equal funding to each presidential candidate.

I only hope we can get rid of the Liberal & Labor scum forever.

Would Australia's Macron please stand up.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #38 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:42pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:32pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Liberal & Labor are both train wrecks -

so it makes no difference 4 years or 3 years - it's still a train wreck.

Well, the people vote for them, so blame the electors. No one is forcing them to vote that way.

Well they didn't in France - they voted for an outsider in Macron.

I hope someone will do the same here &
get rid of Liberal & Labor forever.

Yeah but you know that in France they're voting system is also a two horse race voting system. The key difference is that they elect their president and then the people usually vote for the party of the president.

What they do in France which is sth we can adopt here is that they give equal funding to each presidential candidate.

I only hope we can get rid of the Liberal & Labor scum forever.

Would Australia's Macron please stand up.

We'll have to see how Macron does, but many French people aren't optimistic. Politicians have been calling for reform for many years and nothing happens.

I hope Macron is different but we'll have to wait and see. Don't forget that Macron was part of the former socialist government, and is essentially an establishment candidate.

What I think we need is a 'radical', someone is willing to engage in bold reform, but within limits. Most politicians aren't radicals.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #39 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:47pm

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:22pm:

No I'm not - I am saying that an election in a different period will be likely to have produced a different mix in its result, it's not rocket surgery.

i.e there will be a different mix of Labor senators a different mix of Libs and a different mix or independents and greens.

This helps to prevent a single election landslide from being enough to result in full control of both houses. It has proven to be very beneficial by producing a good balance over many decades.

Ah, I see your point now. You're talking about how people vote based on the conditions of that time.

Mmm, good point. This warrants further consideration.

As an alternative, what about having a situation in which the people choose the government every 4 years, but then choose one-half of the senators every three years and six years? Sure, you'd be doubling-up on elections, but the benefit would be that each House would be subject to individual scrutiny (except when the two coincide, i.e. every 12 years)??

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95268
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #40 - Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 9:00pm

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:32pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 8:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Liberal & Labor are both train wrecks -

so it makes no difference 4 years or 3 years - it's still a train wreck.

Well, the people vote for them, so blame the electors. No one is forcing them to vote that way.

Well they didn't in France - they voted for an outsider in Macron.

I hope someone will do the same here &
get rid of Liberal & Labor forever.

Yeah but you know that in France they're voting system is also a two horse race voting system. The key difference is that they elect their president and then the people usually vote for the party of the president.

What they do in France which is sth we can adopt here is that they give equal funding to each presidential candidate.

I only hope we can get rid of the Liberal & Labor scum forever.

Would Australia's Macron please stand up.

We'll have to see how Macron does, but many French people aren't optimistic. Politicians have been calling for reform for many years and nothing happens.

I hope Macron is different but we'll have to wait and see. Don't forget that Macron was part of the former socialist government, and is essentially an establishment candidate.

What I think we need is a 'radical', someone is willing to engage in bold reform, but within limits. Most politicians aren't radicals.

Macron is a centrist.

I don't think France or Australia are ready for a radical yet.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 80196
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #41 - Jul 24^th, 2017 at 5:24am

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 7:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 6:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 4:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2017 at 3:55pm:

All members please note that I've have proposed such reforms on this forum before.

Seems I'm not that crazy after all.

And Aussie, no senators won't be elected for 8 years; they'll all be elected at the same time.

Does that not defeat the purpose and benefit. The split election for the senate makes it less likely that the whole of government will be made from the politics of that single snapshot of time. Reduces the likelihood of both houses being dominated by one party which is very desirable and better balanced.

I've heard the rotation argument before. Thetruth is that politicians almost always vote along party lines whether they were elected 3 years earlier or 12 years earlier.

Second, what makes the Senate multi party is it's voting system not its rotation. Under a 4/4 system, senators would be elected all at once, i.e. 12 senators instead of 6. This increases the likelihood of micro parties in he senate, which some people consider good.

Ergo, the rotation argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. If you had a house full of independents then yes the rotation would make a difference, but political parties blow that out of the water.

Quote:

I've heard the rotation argument before. Thetruth is that politicians almost always vote along party lines whether they were elected 3 years earlier or 12 years earlier.

irrespective of how many times you have heard the argument you have just shown that you didn't understand it.

Quote:

Ergo, the rotation argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Scrutiny does not mean finding arguments that support your view.

It is a fact that the mix in Australian senates have not represented the result of a single election result on the whole.

Yeee-usssh - but the people don't all always vote along party lines, so if the majority party is a total (gasps) train wreck, the people have the option of booting out a significant portion of the senate half way through that eight year stretch in the hope of altering any balance that may accrue to the majority party IN the Senate.

There should, on the other hand, be no option by the 'ruling party' in the Houses (which is the ONLY place they rule, BTW) to fiddle the books by nominating short term senators who have not completed an eight year sting

(sorry)

stint for the poll booth. It should simply be that those who missed out at the last four year election get to go to the poll THIS four year election time. Not as simple as that, and any course taken is fraught with hazards, but perhaps a full review would help.

Lowering the pay structure so as to encourage ONLY people concerned with public service might help - we've been there before.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

juliar Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 22966	Re: Fixed four year terms Reply #42 - Jul 24^th, 2017 at 7:10am Can U just imagine the sheer AGONY of 4 years of Bull S. as "PM" with the CFMEU and the Greenies in control ?
Back to top	IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Fixed four year terms Reply #43 - Jul 24^th, 2017 at 8:56am On this crap re 3 years not being long enough. If a government is doing a good job, they will be returned... again and again and again. How long was Howard in? Hawke? Menzies? Governments get tossed out because they lose their way or are not up to it.
Back to top	IP Logged

juliar

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 22966

Re: Fixed four year terms
Reply #44 - Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:10am

Has it occurred to anyone that this is just a great big distraction ?

Shorty has invented this to try to distract from his abysmal lack of performance.

Mal naturally goes along with this distraction because he would be quite happy to get 4 years when he wins the next election.

Shorty's brainflop might backfire on him because the thought of Shorten and the CFMEU as "PM" for 4 YEARS is enough to make most people reach for the chunder bucket.

Back to top

IP Logged