Swagman wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 12:41pm:

No they aren't. They only guarantee supply, they don't guarantee a no questions asked vote on every legislation.

Frances wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 9:33am:


Looks like a lot of bull, to me.....

There is one concept that is missing here.  Take the situation in SA where the Libs lead 53/47 in 2PP yet the independents will decide who governs.

Instead of negotiation which might be appropriate in a dead-heat, how about the independents consult the people of SA about it?  Oh that's right... we held an election with a massive liberal majority. They could use that as a hint that the people want  liberal govt and therefore support them.  But no, independents have very rarely ever been anything even remotely independent. Nor do they seem to consider the views of the electorate.

The electorates voted in Indies. Again, the Nats had waged hate campaigns, the simian sat there with his feet on a table and kept them there when the Indies came to negotiate with him. Can you show more contempt than that? Any wonder Oaky and Windsor backed Labor?

Really, try thinking for a bit!

There is no gerrymander in SA—you might say the Nats had a gerrymander in their favor, 3% of the votes and they have a whole heap of reps, Greens have 8–12% support got 1 rep. Just the luck of the dice with single member electorates.

Difference is—independent AECs nowadays.

OK, clarification—in the HoR the Nats got way more seats than their tiny support base (3%) would suggest, while Greens with 3–4 times the support of the Nats have only 1 HoR seat.

So let’s do proportional voting—Nats wiped out. Greens get 12 seats

The utter lack of thought by the rightarded really is worrying!

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 1:23pm:


I think the argument you have presented is an excellent one for people not being represented appropriately to be honest. However, that is not so much an argument supporting independents being not independent, in point of fact, it argues effectively that they (as pointed out) acted independently, so independently they were independent of the system that elected them, namely "representative democracy".

Whilst I realise that there are partisan issues at play in this, not surprising on a partisan semi political discussion site really, the stand out non partisan point to me is that this highlights the need for Australia to have a good hard look at the myriad flaws inherent in the Representative Democratic system and, work towards changing that to a direct democratic system. YEP there will still be ideological issues aplenty to discuss at length, yes there will still be flaws, errors, corruption and concerns, that is people being human I suspect. However, Australians will have a much clearer and louder voice in how we are Governed, and, eventually, Government will be something genuinely for the people, rather than the currents system whereby Governing is done to the people (regardless of the Party crap).