Australia's two party political system and political reform

[MovingAverage]

i know a few are searching far and deep looking at the alternatives to OUR two-party preferred system

The two party preferred system is not our problem…the issue is that our political system only appeals to a certain narrow section of our society who frankly have narcissist personality traits. Our system only appeals to sycophants wanting to perpetuate the same old same old. Our system does not enable true reformists

 

[divs4ever]

The two party preferred system is not our problem…the issue is that our political system only appeals to a certain narrow section of our society who frankly have narcissist personality traits. Our system only appeals to sycophants wanting to perpetuate the same old same old. Our system does not enable true reformists

that too , but it all starts in the party pre-selection process , branch-stacking , recruiting your mates so you get the 'numbers ' and of course you have the 'party backers ' and lobbyists

 

[MovingAverage]

that too , but it all starts in the party pre-selection process , branch-stacking , recruiting your mates so you get the 'numbers ' and of course you have the 'party backers ' and lobbyists

Ain’t that the truth

 

[wayneL]

The two party preferred system is not our problem…the issue is that our political system only appeals to a certain narrow section of our society who frankly have narcissist personality traits. Our system only appeals to sycophants wanting to perpetuate the same old same old. Our system does not enable true reformists

It actually does enable true reform. It's just that the average dumbarse pleb doesn't realise it and nobody is going to tell them.

 

[MovingAverage]

It actually does enable true reform. It's just that the average dumbarse pleb doesn't realise it and nobody is going to tell them.

Where is the true reform then?

 

[wayneL]

Where is the true reform then?

It is contained with our preferential voting system. We plebeians can affect a reform via our vote, if only most of us realised the power we actually do have.

The narrative is that we have a two party system, vis-a-vis the two party preferred narrative.

That is not the power of a preferential system, even if presented as such by both the major parties and the media.

It may be somewhat of a psychological process but, we plebeians have the wherewithal to completely change the ideological landscape of our country by the way we vote, if I knew we realised, en masse, that we can do so.

Lay the blame squarely at the lack of education of how our system works, primarily but not exclusively at the Australian electoral commissions feet.

There are other villains here, notably the media and the education system.

But how is it that after decades and decades of this system that almost nobody understands it. My suspicion is that it suits the establishment for it to be so.

That doesn't take away that, if only we peons understood it, we could change everything, over time

 

[JohnDe]

It is contained with our preferential voting system. We plebeians can affect a reform via our vote, if only most of us realised the power we actually do have.

The narrative is that we have a two party system, vis-a-vis the two party preferred narrative.

That is not the power of a preferential system, even if presented as such by both the major parties and the media.

It may be somewhat of a psychological process but, we plebeians have the wherewithal to completely change the ideological landscape of our country by the way we vote, if I knew we realised, en masse, that we can do so.

Lay the blame squarely at the lack of education of how our system works, primarily but not exclusively at the Australian electoral commissions feet.

There are other villains here, notably the media and the education system.

But how is it that after decades and decades of this system that almost nobody understands it. My suspicion is that it suits the establishment for it to be so.

That doesn't take away that, if only we peons understood it, we could change everything, over time

"Lay the blame squarely at the lack of education" Agreed.

Political studies should be a compulsory subject at all schools. Start with the basics in Primary School and move to more in-depth information in High School. It'll make for a better society.

 

[MovingAverage]

It is contained with our preferential voting system. We plebeians can affect a reform via our vote, if only most of us realised the power we actually do have.

The narrative is that we have a two party system, vis-a-vis the two party preferred narrative.

That is not the power of a preferential system, even if presented as such by both the major parties and the media.

It may be somewhat of a psychological process but, we plebeians have the wherewithal to completely change the ideological landscape of our country by the way we vote, if I knew we realised, en masse, that we can do so.

Lay the blame squarely at the lack of education of how our system works, primarily but not exclusively at the Australian electoral commissions feet.

There are other villains here, notably the media and the education system.

But how is it that after decades and decades of this system that almost nobody understands it. My suspicion is that it suits the establishment for it to be so.

That doesn't take away that, if only we peons understood it, we could change everything, over time

My comment was more directed to politicians who have the balls to bring about true reform—all they have done for many decades is tinker around the edge and avoid the big ticket stuff that is often unpopular but very necessary. We have seen no meaningful reform in many decades. I don’t mean political highbrow rubbish—I mean reform that is truely meaningful to the general public

 

[rederob]

It is contained with our preferential voting system. We plebeians can affect a reform via our vote, if only most of us realised the power we actually do have.

The narrative is that we have a two party system, vis-a-vis the two party preferred narrative.

That is not the power of a preferential system, even if presented as such by both the major parties and the media.

It may be somewhat of a psychological process but, we plebeians have the wherewithal to completely change the ideological landscape of our country by the way we vote, if I knew we realised, en masse, that we can do so.

Lay the blame squarely at the lack of education of how our system works, primarily but not exclusively at the Australian electoral commissions feet.

There are other villains here, notably the media and the education system.

But how is it that after decades and decades of this system that almost nobody understands it. My suspicion is that it suits the establishment for it to be so.

That doesn't take away that, if only we peons understood it, we could change everything, over time

Not quite right.
Preferential voting requires the voting process to be exhausted, via a preferential count if necessary, until a candidate has one more vote than any other.
A major flaw of this process is that from time to time Labor or Liberal preferences end up being counted towards their principal parliamentary opponent. This effectively leads to a defacto 2 party system and it's just a nonsense! If I vote Green, the last thing I want is to see that my ballot's preferences ending up contributing to a Country Party member being voted in!
Optional preferential voting overcomes this by allowing voters to choose only one, or any other number, in preference. Thus in a 3 horse race it's smart to only use a primary vote so that no preferences are distributed.
On the other hand, there may be a few candidates hard to separate, plus a few you would never vote for in a fit. So in that case allocate preference votes only to those you would like to see elected.
Optional preferential voting would be especially valuable in Senate elections where preference deals have seen people elected who get less than a fraction of a percent of the primary vote. That process would also negate the need for "above the line" versus below the line" voting.
Both major parties know that optional preferential voting would disadvantage them, so this electoral reform will never pass federally.
Having been a scrutineer I am always surprised at the comparatively low number of informal votes, despite occasionally funny and rude comments and drawings on ballot papers.

 

[wayneL]

My comment was more directed to politicians who have the balls to bring about true reform—all they have done for many decades is tinker around the edge and avoid the big ticket stuff that is often unpopular but very necessary. We have seen no meaningful reform in many decades. I don’t mean political highbrow rubbish—I mean reform that is truely meaningful to the general public

That is because they will be no reform while plebeians continue to vote binarily(sic, because I love inventing words).

We, collectively, continue to vote on a tribal basis without regard to the actual ideology we wish to vote for.

Classic example is those who continue to vote for the liberal and labour parties, even though that long ago they have betrayed their actual grassroots voter base.

Yet if you asked the average photo of a major party what their parties actual electoral platform is, they would be at a loss to describe it.

It has just become a team sport with all the brainlessness that that implies.

 

[wayneL]

Not quite right.
Preferential voting requires the voting process to be exhausted, via a preferential count if necessary, until a candidate has one more vote than any other.
A major flaw of this process is that from time to time Labor or Liberal preferences end up being counted towards their principal parliamentary opponent. This effectively leads to a defacto 2 party system and it's just a nonsense! If I vote Green, the last thing I want is to see that my ballot's preferences ending up contributing to a Country Party member being voted in!
Optional preferential voting overcomes this by allowing voters to choose only one, or any other number, in preference. Thus in a 3 horse race it's smart to only use a primary vote so that no preferences are distributed.
On the other hand, there may be a few candidates hard to separate, plus a few you would never vote for in a fit. So in that case allocate preference votes only to those you would like to see elected.
Optional preferential voting would be especially valuable in Senate elections where preference deals have seen people elected who get less than a fraction of a percent of the primary vote.
Both major parties know that optional preferential voting would disadvantage them, so this electoral reform will never pass federally.
Having been a scrutineer I am always surprised at the comparatively low number of informal votes, despite occasionally funny and rude comments and drawings on ballot papers.

You implication is that the voter is tied into the preferences as distributed by the party they vote for as number one.

This is as I described above a lack of education... And perhaps even a case for non compulsory voting... Happy to go into that debate subsequent to this.

However there is absolutely nothing at all which prevents any voter from distributing their preferences as they see fit.

As I indicated abovr this is the true power of our voting system as long as voters are educated as such.

The failure of our system is in the lack of education in this regard.

 

[rederob]

You implication is that the voter is tied into the preferences as distributed by the party they vote for as number one.

Not so.
I determine the order for House votes and for Senate votes, providing the latter vote is below the line.
Happy to educate you.

 

[wayneL]

Not so.
I determine the order for House votes and for Senate votes, providing the latter vote is below the line.
Happy to educate you.

Correct

But there is the choice

 

[MovingAverage]

That is because they will be no reform while plebeians continue to vote binarily(sic, because I love inventing words).

Why are you suggesting it is the voting public (I don't have the distain for voters that you seem to do) that continue to vote binarily (I like that word) and that is the cause of our problems. What serious alternatives are there--Greens (don't make me laugh), One Nation (doubt it), United (really). While it is easy to believe you are perhaps smarter then the average voter the reality is there are no serious alternatives to the two majors.

 

[rederob]

Correct

But there is the choice

I explained that the present system requires an exhaustion of preferences if the primary votes don't give a winner.
In those cases (Lower House) I cannot say I won't give a preference to a candidate I detest, know to be dishonest or has stupid policies, as it invalidates the vote.
How is that a valid choice?

 

[wayneL]

I explained that the present system requires an exhaustion of preferences if the primary votes don't give a winner.
In those cases (Lower House) I cannot say I won't give a preference to a candidate I detest, know to be dishonest or has stupid policies, as it invalidates the vote.
How is that a valid choice?

If I am interpreting what you were saying correctly that's me would seem to validate my personal opinion that voting should be non compulsory.

But that is quite another argument altogether.

My point is this: if I favour the Schmuck Tuckus party, I can preference them as number one. If my second preference is that "all wear red bandanas party", I can preference them as two.

However as is likely and as indicated by yourself, these parties are eliminated before a majority is attained, I could suck it up and go the LNP as number three in favour of the egregious labour party and the even more preposterous Greens.

I had my say, but failing that I end up with Scotties, even though and might have to take Ipecac Syrup, as opposed to slitting my wrists because the socialists have got in.

my point is that collectively we can via the preferential system effect changed our country politically, on the assumption that all are educated enough to do so.

My further point is that I fear that the AEC has failed to effect this education.

PS apologies for typos and autocorrect

 

[wayneL]

Why are you suggesting it is the voting public (I don't have the distain for voters that you seem to do) that continue to vote binarily (I like that word) and that is the cause of our problems. What serious alternatives are there--Greens (don't make me laugh), One Nation (doubt it), United (really). While it is easy to believe you are perhaps smarter then the average voter the reality is there are no serious alternatives to the two majors.

I do have some sympathy with your point of view here. They just seem to be in most of the minors, a deal breaker as far as I see the viewpoint of most Australians.

Granted.

Equally I see deal breakers in the major parties also. However turn my perspective most Australian superbike for the majors are seemingly incapable of seeing these because of tribal reasons (personal opinion)

Therefore in every case, we find ourselves waiting for the least egregious party.

*In my opinion*, if each Australian would analyse this on an objective level as possible, most would find themselves voting outside of the major parties.

The implores us to leave aside political tribalism and to become more active in voting for what we want from our government.

I posit that is not happening in any grayscale at the moment.

 

[rederob]

my point is that collectively we can via the preferential system effect changed our country politically, on the assumption that all are educated enough to do so.

I don't agree.
For a start, unless you had actually participated in a Senate vote count you would have no idea how complex it is, and above and below the line voting complicates it even more, given both types of voting preferences have to be counted.
And, if I don't want to give a preference to a candidate, then my vote becomes invalid.

*In my opinion*, if each Australian would analyse this on an objective level as possible, most would find themselves voting outside of the major parties.

But most of those votes then get redistributed, usually ending going to one of the major parties.
So how exactly does your idea work?

And apologies for discussing this in the wrong thread.

 

[wayneL]

I don't agree.
For a start, unless you had actually participated in a Senate vote count you would have no idea how complex it is, and above and below the line voting complicates it even more, given both types of voting preferences have to be counted.
And, if I don't want to give a preference to a candidate, then my vote becomes invalid.
How exactly does tour idea work?
And apologies for discussing this in the wtrong thread.

Yes it is off topic, but a pretty important conversation, so I hope all will indulge us.

Yes I do understand the complexity of how this works and hence why I have implied the collectivity of the process.

If I haven't made that clear then yes, the process is both collective and complex, no argument there.

But this is why I keep mentioning education on both had a system works and on objective observation of how parties operate in reality (yes I haven't really mentioned this much but it is an important point... and yes difficult to assess for parties that have never been in government).

In practice I do understand your point Rederob. But also that does not take away my point that it is *possible by our system to effect reform.

But as mentioned, the caveat is education and people understanding how our system works.

 

[rederob]

But also that does not take away my point that it is *possible by our system to effect reform.

Very few House votes are invalid, so as I repeat, many voters end up ultimately giving a vote to a candidate they vehemently don't want. There is no avoiding this fact, and no amount of education will change it.
The reform can only come from changing the system.
By the way, before Gough was tossed out I had a long argument with my Politics tutor at uni that Our Governor General was the arbiter rather than the Queen. Now we are the wiser. So why we still have a constitutional monarchy is beyond me.