Phillip Frazer, ‘Above the line or below….’ Echo March 2, correctly observes that Jacqui Lambie, Ricky Muir – along with established independents – would be more highly regarded as ‘doing a goodish job’ well ahead of all members of the big parties. This surely implies that a random selection from the citizenry would give us a better set of representatives than the present system does!
Senate voting options are being changed because of gaming by the micro parties of the voting system; but this is superficial compared with the entrenched gaming – via the party pre-selection process – of the major parties for both houses.
In the honored manner of the court jester, Charlie Pickering, in his show of March 9, gives a brilliant expose of how the pre-selection process works; how voter interest’s come about fourth in priority after factional interests, lobbyist’s concerns and branch stacking.
Check it out on ABC TV iView, starts 7 minutes in – it is hugely educational and would be hilarious if not so true.
Colin Cook, Bangalow
True as far as it goes but is a manufactured/random system something we should aspire to.
After dodgy preselections, both party and micros the single-seat electoral system ensures that the two-party duopoly will always rule. Far fairer would be a form of proportional representation in both houses with members elected according to their party or individual vote. The results could be split as in NZ (why are they always ahead of us and not just in rugby?) with members elected to geographical seats as well as general party seats.
Actually we wouldn’t need a senate to control idealogical nutters like Abbott if we went this way.
Of course the majors will die in a ditch before they agree to anything like a fair system.