Swerv-o

Well, it certainly leads to more accurate representation, however this is usually at the cost of government stability


S

BadgeIsBack

I was about to edit my post to say that the issue of people voting for seats which go to form a government is always interesting if the govt so formed is not representative of the popular vote - in any electoral counting system. The popular vote as reported in these systems is just an artifact and a statistic, (am I right there?)

If people voted for a ruling party/PM then it would be fair and utterly clear but the point of electing a local seat is that the govt can then be represented by more than one party.

This is seperate to the notion that PR is undemocratic. I am still wanting clarification from Wol on why the votes are used by the government the way they want, in the lower house certainly. I don't get that.

Mr Grumpy

It isnt, it is a common lie that is told over and over again.

I support PR, rather than preferential or FPTP not because I think it is the best system, but because it gives people what they want. If they want instability and 27 different parties in Parliament then so be it.

BadgeIsBack

Ok....so is Wol worrying needlessly?

Swerv-o

I think the key difference is that FPTP is predicated on local representation - you vote for a local member for the seat you live in - where PR is predicated on national representation, and you lose the concept of having a local MP based in your constituency.

But in reality, what do local MPs actually do? As I mentioned before, they don't actually represent their seats at all do they? I'm leaning towards voting for a party at a national level with manifold splinter parties being the more democratic form of representation...


S

arkon

Whatever system you use you end up with nearly half the population unhappy and not being represented so clearly Democracy as it currently stands is pretty bad. I think I prefer the Chinese way where the country is always put first with huge long timeframes for long term planning etc. (minus the tanks of course)

Swerv-o

That's another problem with the Australian Federal system - the 3 year govenrment cycle means you are never further than 18 months away from an election - this breeds short termist thinking I think. There's very little strategic, long term consideration.


S

KJCherokee

The length of parliamentary terms is a problem anywhere - there's no such thing as a perfect length. If you have a good government 3 years is too short, if you have a bad one 3 years is too long. And whether a government is good or bad is a subjective personal opinion.

I like the US presidential system of limiting any one government to two 4 year terms - which means that for the second term the president doesn't have to worry about being re-elected when he forms his policies. Unfortunately he does have to get them ratified by people who are wanting to get re-elected!