Help Crowd Fund The Jacksonville Book Here
Some hypocrisy leaves me shaking my head, some makes my blood boil, and on the odd occasion it leaves me in stitches with hysterical laughter.
Thankfully this week has supplied the latter of these three.
In the last few days discussions have been held between over 30 of the countries minor political parties. These discussions have been to decide a course of action and response to the Coalition and the Greens move to lock them out of the Senate by altering the way the preference system and flows work when you vote for Senate Members.
Anyone who believes that the Coalition or the Greens would ram a controversial change such as this through parliament without debate in order to benefit other parties is either a fool or has no understanding of politics.
The Greens are in panic mode after seeing the Sex Party pick up an Upper House seat in Victoria and the Animal Justice Party pick up an Upper House seat in NSW. These are both seats that in their arrogance believe should have been theirs.
They do not desire to see this replicated at Federal level.
The Greens would like us all to believe that their decision to rid Australia of the voting system that saw them enter parliament is about increasing democracy.
This is a straight out lie.
There is not one thing about this dodgy backroom deal that makes voting for the Senate more democratic, not a single thing. Despite the completely false statements claiming that voters will now be able to choose where their preferences go, the fact is voters have always had that choice.
Forcing voters to number more boxes above the line is however likely to see the number of donkey votes skyrocket.
Where did that integrity go….??
There are winners and losers in every political change. In this change the losers are all of the minor political parties that the Greens feel threatened by and the Coalition are having problems negotiating with. They are the big losers. How convenient.
So now the minor parties, who the Greens have sought to ensure will not get the benefit of preferences, have decided to direct their preferences away from the Greens or the Coalition.
And my how those piggies are squealing…
All of a sudden all over social media all those Green members and supporters who were complaining about the evils of preference flows and how undemocratic they were have had a sudden change of heart and desperately want them back. Not all of them of course, only the ones beneficial to them.
I attempted to debate democratic process with the staffer of one Victorian Green MP yesterday on Twitter, ironically a Greens MP only in parliament due to Labor preference flows. When I asked him to give me one way the new Senate voting was more democratic I was blocked. I guess that question went in the “Way Too Hard” basket. He was complaining about the notion of the Sex Party and Animal Justice Party not preferencing the Greens.
In doing this deal with the Coalition to ensure these parties never make it Senate the Greens have proven themselves a political enemy, it’s that simple. Changing the electoral system to intentionally wipe out another party is not the act of an ally, it is the act of an enemy. Enemies tend to be put in last place on How To Votes and in Senate preferences. Last is the position most reserve for traitors and if that is whom it is reserved for The Greens fit in that hole nicely.
In NSW the Animal Justice Party had an early taste of Greens attitude when the Parliamentary Inquiry Into Companion Animal Breeding Practices was announced. The Greens smelling a PR opportunity going to waste reportedly sought to ensure that Mark Pearson of the Animal Justice Party was not a part of it despite his major role in it being announced. However despite all of their grovelling to the Coalition they ultimately failed and Pearson found himself on the committee. I note that Pearson was the only member to have been to a puppy factory or a battery hen shed, none of the Greens have had that level of experience, nevertheless they sought to do him out of his earned position. Something I’m sure both Pearson and the AJP will remember not too fondly.
The Sex Party were also left feeling like lovers scorned
In Federal Parliament this term the Greens have three achievements to their credit:
- Screwing over thousands of pensioners
- Helping corporations hide their money to evade tax
- Destroying the Federal futures of minor parties
The fact that the dodgy Senate deal with the Coalition is blowing up in the Greens faces already is a sure sign that acts of political bastardry do have repercussions. Sometimes those repercussions can even prove fatal.
How poetic that would be…
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
“however claiming it is more democratic is completely false” – where is the logic to support this claim?
It stands to reason that if some large enough proportion of the voting public cannot follow the flow of preferences under the old system then they are voting blindly based on the decisions of others.
It stands to reason that if entering self-directed preferences is so onerous and prone to vote-nullifying flaws that the majority cannot do it, then the system is skewed against them making a simple, clear decision.
Both of those are cases where the voter is not electing a representative according to their wishes. I hate to break it to you, but a basic tenet of democracy is voters electing representatives according to their own wishes.
Would we consider a system where the population fills in their ballots at gunpoint democratic?
Redirection of votes in an esoteric manner is no less flawed than gunpoint democracy, they both suffer the same root problem, being that the voter is not able to select a candidate in a free and easy fashion, and that they might end up voting for a candidate who does not represent them.
Better than all that, candidates now need genuine support from their electorate. What’s not democratic about that?
Perhaps you are confusing “more convenient for politicians” with “more democratic”? They are different you know…
There is nothing more democratic than being able to vote for every candidate in the order you want them, which is the option under the current system
And that option remains. Now we also have a just-as-democratic method that allows us to vote for as many, or few, candidates as we like above the line instead. The only thing missing is the undemocratic esoteric trade in preferences.
“Just as democratic” is not the same as “more democratic”
When over 21% of voters vote for minor parties i.e. not Labor, Liberal, National or Green and the so-called reform is aimed at squeezing them out then I think there is a strong argument for it being less democratic.
“Just as democratic” was relating the above the line to the below the line option. The new above the line option is “more democratic” than esoteric preference deals. The new above the line option is “just as democratic” as the below the line option.
As a member of that 21% I can tell you, speaking from experience, that I think this option is more democratic as I now have the legal right to choose where my vote is exhausted, and where it flows before that exhaustion, without spending half an hour making sure I haven’t stuffed it up and risked losing my vote (for what it’s worth).
The reform is aimed at ending backroom preference deals. You’re begging the question by assuming, without grounds, that the reforms are aimed at squeezing out micro-parties, and so arriving at the conclusion they’re undemocratic. There is nothing in the new rules to say candidates can’t stand for election. There is nothing in the new rules that suggest a popular candidate from a micro-party cannot be elected. There is no increased financial barrier as there would have been if they’d gone down the road of raising the cost to appear.
I can only conclude that you think that a reduced chance of getting elected due to the removal of factors that were outside the control of the voter equates to a loss of democracy.
The very notion of democracy is predicated on factors within the control of the voter. The more factors under the control of the voter the more democratic it is. The corollary being that the more factors that are outside the control of the voter, the less democratic it is.