Should Australia consider a version of the American political system?

[Julia]

But the nature of American presidential primary races give ordinary citizens who are registered party members the chance to decide who will lead them, rather than parliamentarians who can change their leaders at will in secret caucuses or leadership spills in Canberra.

The American opposition candidate, once preselected, cannot be changed, because the grassroots party members have spoken. Nor can a President be dumped if the polls are going badly.

An Australian system whereby registered Labor or Liberal party members preselected their preferred Prime Minister and Opposition Leader – say, around the time of June or July, three or four months out from the election – would be a major step forward for public, rather than party, democracy.

In case of the current Labor government, Julia Gillard (setting aside the manner in which she took power) would have two and a half years to govern without constant worry about challengers.

This is an extract from an article by Paul Toohey which prompted me to wonder how something similar would work here. Instead of the Party electing their leader, should the Australian electorate be given the opportunity to vote for whom they would like?

That would seem to get over the current peculiarity of having as at present two unpopular leaders when two apparently more desirable people are waiting in the wings.

Or should we be content to leave it to the Party to decide who is best? After all, they have a deep familiarity with the candidates that we cannot have, and an appreciation of how easy or hard any chosen person would be to work with, e.g. Kevin Rudd's apparently dysfunctional style of leadership which alienated so many.

 

[Caveman]

Lawl

 

[chops_a_must]

Apart from what we have at the moment, our system has generally worked very well. Much better than the US.

What we need is for more Australians to be involved in community groups, and advocacy, and in politics at all levels.

We aren't getting what we want because we've allowed narrow interest groups to dictate terms.

 

[banco]

Would be unworkable without other changes to the system. You end up with a leader the party doesn't want, they refuse to cooperate with him/her and you have a stalemate.

We'd have to be crazy to move towards a more American style system given how dysfunctional their system has become. It worked ok for awhile due to structural factors that no longer exist and now it barely works at all.

 

[McLovin]

Primaries would be completely at odds with the parliamentary system. Considering parliamentary democracies are one of the most, if not the most, stable forms of government I don't think we need to tinker with it.

We'd end up having elections every time a leader lost the confidence of his party. More elections is something I can live without.

 

[sptrawler]

The U.S would love to have the Westminster system, they also would love to have a royal family.
What it does, is puts checks in place, no one is in a secure position, that can't be challenged.

It is the most balanced, contestable system in operation at the moment.IMO

 

[So_Cynical]

We need to get rid of 2 party preferred voting...and reduce the number of senate seats for the 2 smallest states.

 

[sptrawler]

We need to get rid of 2 party preferred voting...and reduce the number of senate seats for the 2 smallest states.

Can you expand on that So-Cynical, I agree the two party prefered is stupid.
What is the issue with the senate, I'm not conversant with the senate process.

 

[McLovin]

Can you expand on that So-Cynical, I agree the two party prefered is stupid.
What is the issue with the senate, I'm not conversant with the senate process.

Tasmania: Population ~500,000, Senators 12.

NSW: Population ~7,200,000, Senators 12.

See the problem?

I think the best way to get around the problem is to lower the number of senators/state rather have proportional representation in the senate (which is the states' house).

To illustrate that point:

Australia ~22m, senators 76.

United States ~315m senators 100.

 

[medicowallet]

I like the current system, as it exposes dysfunctional governments for what they truly are.

I also agree with above, that the senate seat situation is ridiculous, talk about one vote one value

MW

 

[howardbandy]

Greetings --

Americans are often polled about what they would most like to see changed in the US political system. Regularly, the top issue is to remove the electoral college from the presidential election.

Individual American people vote for one of the candidates who is running for the office of president. The winner of the popular election in each state determines how that state's electoral votes will be allocated. In most states, it is winner-take-all (a few are allocating proportionally, but not many). The result is that the presidential candidates focus on those few states where the popular vote is nearly equally divided -- commonly called the "battleground states." A state that has 55% or more in favor of one candidate is pretty much a lock for that candidate since the electoral vote will not change not matter how many of the undecided voters can be recruited. Consequently he or she pays little or no attention to it.

Add to that Gerrymandering of voting districts, the high level of influence of lobbyists, complex and unfair tax system, broken health care system, etc, etc. Australians might want some changes, but design your changes carefully rather than adopt the US system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Regards,
Howard

 

[chops_a_must]

Greetings --

Americans are often polled about what they would most like to see changed in the US political system. Regularly, the top issue is to remove the electoral college from the presidential election.

Individual American people vote for one of the candidates who is running for the office of president. The winner of the popular election in each state determines how that state's electoral votes will be allocated. In most states, it is winner-take-all (a few are allocating proportionally, but not many). The result is that the presidential candidates focus on those few states where the popular vote is nearly equally divided -- commonly called the "battleground states." A state that has 55% or more in favor of one candidate is pretty much a lock for that candidate since the electoral vote will not change not matter how many of the undecided voters can be recruited. Consequently he or she pays little or no attention to it.

Add to that Gerrymandering of voting districts, the high level of influence of lobbyists, complex and unfair tax system, broken health care system, etc, etc. Australians might want some changes, but design your changes carefully rather than adopt the US system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Regards,
Howard

The gerrymander is still a problem in Australia.

The national party relies on it.

And the battleground situation is similar to our marginal seats and the pork barrelling in western Sydney.


Also, agree with the above. The senate situation is an artefact of history that no longer needs to be addressed. Depending on where you live, your vote can be either worth more, or worth much less. Constitutional weakness for certain voting populations is something that needs to be addressed IMO.

 

[MrBurns]

The parties generally choose the most popular person otherewise they wouldnt get elected.

If you step back the real problem is the standard of people getting into politics, look at NSW, they're all criminals well Labor is.
And the Labor party, they're either idiots or criminals, the standard is appalling, if we can devise a system that gives us the cream of society and not the dregs in politics we would be the envy of the world and we would all have better lives.

 

[Julia]

What we need is for more Australians to be involved in community groups, and advocacy, and in politics at all levels.

Can you say more about why you think this would improve Australian politics?
We seem to see more people taking an interest in politics when they're dissatisfied such as at present.
During most of John Howard's tenure, I don't recall too much political discussion, other than around eg his unpopular decision to join with the US in the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions.

We aren't getting what we want because we've allowed narrow interest groups to dictate terms.

Examples?

We need to get rid of 2 party preferred voting...and reduce the number of senate seats for the 2 smallest states.

So if we changed the Senate to a per capita basis, and dumped preferential voting in favour of First past the Post, how would that be?

And the battleground situation is similar to our marginal seats and the pork barrelling in western Sydney.

Yep, just as well the government has given up any notion of attaining a surplus. The vote buying has started already.

Constitutional weakness for certain voting populations is something that needs to be addressed IMO.

Could you expand on this for us?

 

[chops_a_must]

Can you say more about why you think this would improve Australian politics?
We seem to see more people taking an interest in politics when they're dissatisfied such as at present.
During most of John Howard's tenure, I don't recall too much political discussion, other than around eg his unpopular decision to join with the US in the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions.

I'd disagree with that premise.

I think people are generally apathetic, disenchanted, and therefore not active participants in politics.

Which then leads to a narrowing pool of people who are willing to get into politics.

Howard crushed political discussion. Grass roots funding to sporting clubs and most community groups and the like declined during the period, and made many clubs and community groups beholden to alcohol and gambling money.

I'd argue that the problems we're having now are a result of policies and cultural change during that period of time.

Examples?

Unions.
Mining companies.
RSL Clubs.

So if we changed the Senate to a per capita basis, and dumped preferential voting in favour of First past the Post, how would that be?

I reckon we'd be far better off having a senate that doesn't have any representation to the states - that is an actual national senate.

Could you expand on this for us?

For example, the NT has 2 senators. Despite having half the population of Tasmania, with 12 senators. Although this will likely change in 20-30 years.

Labor and the LNP both have a safe 1 senate seat each.

There is no motivation to compete for votes in the senate.

There is also a constitutional weakness, when it comes to land rights and ability to generate revenue. So services and infrastructure are likely to be worse than anywhere else in Australia.

But, it has more serious consequences. For example, the Nuclear Waste Dump. Despite almost unanimous agreement amongst geologists that the safest place for nuclear waste is for it to be located in SA, it's going to be put in the NT.

And the same happens with defence decisions.

There is consensus between the two major parties on second rate policy decisions, because there is constitutional weakness, and little incentive to do anything different.

 

[McLovin]

So if we changed the Senate to a per capita basis, and dumped preferential voting in favour of First past the Post, how would that be?

If you make the senate per capita then you just end up with another lower house. In my opinion, the problem with the senate is the overwhelming influence of minor/micro political parties. Steve Fielding received 2,500 first preference votes but ended up having control of the senate. If there were, say, 4 senators per state then the required quota to be elected would rise dramatically.

Not likely to happen while the minor parties control the senate.

As long as we are a federation, the senate should remain the states' house.

 

[Julia]

If you make the senate per capita then you just end up with another lower house. In my opinion, the problem with the senate is the overwhelming influence of minor/micro political parties. Steve Fielding received 2,500 first preference votes but ended up having control of the senate.

I also remember Brian Harradine from Tasmania who had a quite ridiculous amount of power.
Why does the Senate have such an excessive proportion of the minor parties?
(I don't know much about how senators are elected.)
Couldn't the voters of, say, Tasmania, choose to vote in all ALP or Coalition senators if there were enough of these standing?

 

[McLovin]

I also remember Brian Harradine from Tasmania who had a quite ridiculous amount of power.
Why does the Senate have such an excessive proportion of the minor parties?
(I don't know much about how senators are elected.)
Couldn't the voters of, say, Tasmania, choose to vote in all ALP or Coalition senators if there were enough of these standing?

Because a senator only needs 14.33% of the vote to get the required "quota" for their senate seat. Any excess votes after the quota is exceeded (but assuming you don't get 28.66%, 42.99% etc) is then distributed as preferences. Because of above the line/below the line voting in the senate, preference deals matter much more. For instance if you vote ALP, then once they have filled their quota the rest of their votes flow to the Greens, whereas in the House elections most people will distribute their own preferences (ie marking 1-5 on your ballott paper). That's how Fielding got elected and how the Greens end up with senate seats.

In the US, on the other hand their are only two senators/state. So it's virtually impossible for anyone besides a GOP/Dem to win a senate seat.

 

[DB008]

This may be a little bit off topic, but the way that the votes are counted and used in the USA is a farce.

Found a SBS article on it.

In a quirk of the US system, American voters do not directly elect their presidents and vice presidents. Technically speaking, they pick 'electors' in an Electoral College.

Here is how this unique system, laid out by the country's founding fathers, works:

- A total of 538 Electoral College votes are distributed among the 50 states and the District of Columbia (the nation's capital, Washington DC).

- Presidential hopefuls must win 270 Electoral College votes or more to be elected.

- In the event of a tie, in which each candidate wins 269 electoral votes, the House of Representatives, currently dominated by the Republicans, would be called on to choose the president.

- Each state, and DC, has a minimum of three Electoral College votes, but those with the largest populations have the most.

- California has 55 Electoral College votes, Texas 38, and New York and Florida 29, making them the largest states up for grabs.

- Almost 40 states are seen as shoo-ins for either the Democrats or the Republicans.

- This means the battleground is across a clutch of swing states, with varying numbers of Electoral College votes on offer.

- Florida is the largest swing state in terms of Electoral College votes. Then comes Ohio with 18, North Carolina with 15 and Virginia with 13.

- The candidate who wins the popular vote in each state wins all its Electoral College votes, except in Maine and Nebraska, which use a tiered system.

- The political parties (or independent candidates) in each state submit to the state's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the state's electoral vote.

- Democrats and Republicans select these individuals either in state party conventions or through appointment by state party leaders, while third parties and independent candidates designate theirs.

- Supporters argue that changing the system to a direct vote for the president would concentrate too much power in the hands of urban populations to the detriment of rural, more sparsely populated states.

 

[Julia]

Because a senator only needs 14.33% of the vote to get the required "quota" for their senate seat. Any excess votes after the quota is exceeded (but assuming you don't get 28.66%, 42.99% etc) is then distributed as preferences. Because of above the line/below the line voting in the senate, preference deals matter much more. For instance if you vote ALP, then once they have filled their quota the rest of their votes flow to the Greens, whereas in the House elections most people will distribute their own preferences (ie marking 1-5 on your ballott paper). That's how Fielding got elected and how the Greens end up with senate seats.

Thank you for explaining. That seems crazy. How could Senate voting be improved?