26 ms·

But both of the two main parties do relatively the same shit. It’s like choosing between Pump water or Mount Franklin… either way you get a raw deal.

doctor_eval 5y ago
I don’t really agree. Unless one is actively seeking a diverse media diet, what we see of both parties is heavily influenced by media concentration. As a country, we largely see what Murdoch’s media wants us to see, so any kind of progressive action or policy of the Labor party is going to be painted in a negative light for most people. This was a huge problem for Julia Gillard in particular. Despite being one of the most effective prime ministers in Australian history[0] you didn’t hear about this from the MSM at the time. Supposedly serious commentators complained in the Murdoch press about her _choice of clothing_ [1]. With powerful filters like this, blurring the achievements and policies of even the very leader of the government of the day, it’s always going to be difficult to distinguish between the parties. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/austra... [1] https://www.sbs.com.au/guide/article/2021/09/09/australias-female-politicians-gillard-legacy https://www.sbs.com.au/guide/article/2021/09/09/australias-f...
throw868788 5y ago
While there are upsides to compulsory voting this is one of its downsides IMO. Because you can't "refrain to vote" the parties know all they have to be is slightly better than the alternative and they will get your vote. In some ways it entrenches the two-party preferred system and means they only have to differentiate on minor issues. In the end they don't have to be good to get your vote, they just have to be slightly better than the next party in line. If you are not satisfied with either party you still need to vote. Even if you vote for a minor party you know many who aren't as engaged in politics will vote for one of the two majors anyway on relative, not absolute basis limiting the power of your "politically engaged" vote. That's my impression of Australia's politics. There's no perfect system.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  I don’t really agree. All parties monitor the flow of preferences very carefully and this is an important means for the electorate to signal the need for change. Plus, not voting is not the same as voting differently. We are also witnessing a significant shift to minor and independent parties, as voters are apparently becoming less affiliated with specific parties over time. Most people I know consider their vote carefully, even if they don’t vote the way I do. In any case, while the Australian system is far from perfect, it does lend greater legitimacy to the incumbent government, and has the effect that if the government you personally voted for does something you don’t like, next time you’re more likely to vote differently.

doctor_eval 5y ago

I don’t really agree. Unless one is actively seeking a diverse media diet, what we see of both parties is heavily influenced by media concentration. As a country, we largely see what Murdoch’s media wants us to see, so any kind of progressive action or policy of the Labor party is going to be painted in a negative light for most people. This was a huge problem for Julia Gillard in particular. Despite being one of the most effective prime ministers in Australian history[0] you didn’t hear about this from the MSM at the time. Supposedly serious commentators complained in the Murdoch press about her _choice of clothing_ [1]. With powerful filters like this, blurring the achievements and policies of even the very leader of the government of the day, it’s always going to be difficult to distinguish between the parties. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/austra... [1] https://www.sbs.com.au/guide/article/2021/09/09/australias-female-politicians-gillard-legacy https://www.sbs.com.au/guide/article/2021/09/09/australias-f...

throw868788 5y ago

While there are upsides to compulsory voting this is one of its downsides IMO. Because you can't "refrain to vote" the parties know all they have to be is slightly better than the alternative and they will get your vote. In some ways it entrenches the two-party preferred system and means they only have to differentiate on minor issues. In the end they don't have to be good to get your vote, they just have to be slightly better than the next party in line. If you are not satisfied with either party you still need to vote. Even if you vote for a minor party you know many who aren't as engaged in politics will vote for one of the two majors anyway on relative, not absolute basis limiting the power of your "politically engaged" vote. That's my impression of Australia's politics. There's no perfect system.

doctor_eval 5y ago
I don’t really agree. All parties monitor the flow of preferences very carefully and this is an important means for the electorate to signal the need for change. Plus, not voting is not the same as voting differently. We are also witnessing a significant shift to minor and independent parties, as voters are apparently becoming less affiliated with specific parties over time. Most people I know consider their vote carefully, even if they don’t vote the way I do. In any case, while the Australian system is far from perfect, it does lend greater legitimacy to the incumbent government, and has the effect that if the government you personally voted for does something you don’t like, next time you’re more likely to vote differently.