3 ms·

> it's an anomaly of our voting system (proportional representation in the Senate on a per-state basis) that sometimes leads to bad policy. The unusual aspect

by vorg 16y ago

> it's an anomaly of our voting system (proportional representation in the Senate on a per-state basis) that sometimes leads to bad policy. The unusual aspect of Australia's voting system causing such bad policy is compulsory voting, rather than proportional representation. The people who wouldn't bother voting in other democracies need to toddle down to the booth in Australia to avoid a fine, resulting in a higher percentage of those unclued in tech matters being voted in. (Also explains why such things don't happen in NZ:)

jacques_chester 16y ago
> The unusual aspect of Australia's voting system causing such bad policy is compulsory voting, rather than proportional representation. I disagree. Compulsory voting is a net benefit, because it drives the parties to focus on the median voter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotellings_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotellings_law). In voluntary systems, only motivated electors will turn out. How do you motivate people to vote? Not with discussion, but with emotion. Consider: US politics is marked by a startling mix of soaring rhetoric and ruthless negativity. Why? Because the goal is to get your own voters to turn out and to make the other guy's voters say "We give up, they all suck!" Australian politics might be a bit country-bumpkin in its tone and content, but it tends to focus on boring service-delivery issues rather than Grand Visions. Reform in stages is the general paradigm of Australian politics -- you have to carry that median voter with you. We do have the key advantage that bills to do with appropriation must deal only with appropriation (s 54). This makes it much harder for horse-trading to occur. Likewise, Australian-style party discipline is the strongest in the world and pretty much precludes sideline deal-making (for good and ill). As Murray Rothbard observed, minor technical details of process can have surprising practical consequences.

by vorg 16y ago

jacques_chester 16y ago

> The unusual aspect of Australia's voting system causing such bad policy is compulsory voting, rather than proportional representation. I disagree. Compulsory voting is a net benefit, because it drives the parties to focus on the median voter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotellings_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotellings_law). In voluntary systems, only motivated electors will turn out. How do you motivate people to vote? Not with discussion, but with emotion. Consider: US politics is marked by a startling mix of soaring rhetoric and ruthless negativity. Why? Because the goal is to get your own voters to turn out and to make the other guy's voters say "We give up, they all suck!" Australian politics might be a bit country-bumpkin in its tone and content, but it tends to focus on boring service-delivery issues rather than Grand Visions. Reform in stages is the general paradigm of Australian politics -- you have to carry that median voter with you. We do have the key advantage that bills to do with appropriation must deal only with appropriation (s 54). This makes it much harder for horse-trading to occur. Likewise, Australian-style party discipline is the strongest in the world and pretty much precludes sideline deal-making (for good and ill). As Murray Rothbard observed, minor technical details of process can have surprising practical consequences.