4 ms·

There will always be only 2 relevant sides in politics. If there were 3 or more, then it means that one sides vote is split, and so will not get a majority. U

There will always be only 2 relevant sides in politics. If there were 3 or more, then it means that one sides vote is split, and so will not get a majority. Unless of course you have some wacky proportional representation system.

nl 13y ago
In Australia we have a wacky proportional representation system.
- jsmeaton 13y ago
  Handing seats over to the greens and independents is pretty much why we had a minority government though. The system works on a seat by seat basis, but it doesn't seem to work when forming a government. Though this election is going to be a landslide for the Libs, and split votes aren't going to have much impact.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    The system has almost always worked as intended: the Government is formed in the House, which has the monopoly on questions of supply. Because the House is single-member electorates, there has been a clear majority in every election except for 2, including this outgoing Parliament. The Senate doesn't form the government and cannot originate supply bills, but otherwise has coequal legislative powers. It is elected on a proportional basis. The system works well because a government can normally form quickly and govern stably, but in order to pass legislation it must give consideration to minority parties in the Senate. You get an Executive that can execute but which must nevertheless be prepared to compromise.
    - jsmeaton 13y ago
      Good points, thanks for that. I guess I have thought about the minority government a little too much when it is an anomaly. I have no problems with the senate. I vote for minority parties (Sex Party last election and this one) because I want protection from the government when required.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        I basically miss the Democrats. It's a pity that Stott-Despoja killed them by zagging left.
        nl 13y ago
        "The Democrats died because they zagging left" narrative is one I've heard before, but it doesn't match the facts. The fall of the Democrat vote mirrors the rise of the Greens vote, and the Greens are way more left leaning than the Democrats ever were. I think their demise had more to do with internal infighting and the Andrew Bartlett drunk in the senate debacle. But yes, I miss them too - they were basically a sensible party who wouldn't do stupid things.
        jacques_chester 13y ago
        When she took the party left, the Greens were already outflanking them. Zagging left cost them the votes they got from Liberal voters. And that was that.
  - nl 13y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your point. Doesn't the fact we had greens and independents win lower-house seats prove that there are other options beside the 2 major parties? Doesn't the current minority government - along with numerous examples of senates where the balance of power wasn't held by the major parties - prove that these parties can have significant influence? The libs will probably win the lower house easily (although I suspect the Greens will hold Melbourne and Wilkie will hold in Tasmania). But I think the senate will be interesting.
    - jsmeaton 13y ago
      Yes, there are other valid options beside the 2 major parties. Having them win individual seats in the lower house shows that the system works. But my argument was that it harms the major party they are most closest to at the macro level. If there were 100 seats and 50 went to the libs, but labor and the greens split 30-20, the libs are (most likely) going to form government even though the people voting greens would prefer a labor government. They get their local representative, but ultimately it means nothing, because the government that forms is on the political opposite of the spectrum. As pointed out in a sister comment though, this has only happened twice in our history, so I'm probably making a bigger deal than is appropriate. Agree that the senate is going to be interesting though.
      - nl 13y ago
        Yes that's a fair point. But it's worth noting that the conservative side of politics in Australia has had this problem for a while, and has a perfectly workable solution. The Liberal/National coalition has often held power, and yet Liberals & Nationals run against each other in elections. There are similar examples in other countries too. Coalitions are interesting because once the minor party has a role in government their views cannot be ignored so easily.
        jsmeaton 13y ago
        And I think the only sensible course of action is for the greens and labor to form a similar coalition, or have some kind of agreement that the greens will always support labor in a minority government. The agreement that no minority government (by both the libs and labor) would be formed this election cycle could only of helped the liberals - not that they needed it.
cabalamat 13y ago
It could be argued that all democracies, by definition, use PR.
kibibu 13y ago
Australia has Instant-Runoff Voting for the House of Representatives, and a somewhat more crazy scheme in the senate. So yes, we have historically had "3rd" parties quite often, from the Australian Democrats in the 90's through to the Australian Greens now.

nl 13y ago

In Australia we have a wacky proportional representation system.

jsmeaton 13y ago
Handing seats over to the greens and independents is pretty much why we had a minority government though. The system works on a seat by seat basis, but it doesn't seem to work when forming a government. Though this election is going to be a landslide for the Libs, and split votes aren't going to have much impact.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  The system has almost always worked as intended: the Government is formed in the House, which has the monopoly on questions of supply. Because the House is single-member electorates, there has been a clear majority in every election except for 2, including this outgoing Parliament. The Senate doesn't form the government and cannot originate supply bills, but otherwise has coequal legislative powers. It is elected on a proportional basis. The system works well because a government can normally form quickly and govern stably, but in order to pass legislation it must give consideration to minority parties in the Senate. You get an Executive that can execute but which must nevertheless be prepared to compromise.
  - jsmeaton 13y ago
    Good points, thanks for that. I guess I have thought about the minority government a little too much when it is an anomaly. I have no problems with the senate. I vote for minority parties (Sex Party last election and this one) because I want protection from the government when required.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      I basically miss the Democrats. It's a pity that Stott-Despoja killed them by zagging left.
      - nl 13y ago
        "The Democrats died because they zagging left" narrative is one I've heard before, but it doesn't match the facts. The fall of the Democrat vote mirrors the rise of the Greens vote, and the Greens are way more left leaning than the Democrats ever were. I think their demise had more to do with internal infighting and the Andrew Bartlett drunk in the senate debacle. But yes, I miss them too - they were basically a sensible party who wouldn't do stupid things.
        jacques_chester 13y ago
        When she took the party left, the Greens were already outflanking them. Zagging left cost them the votes they got from Liberal voters. And that was that.
- nl 13y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point. Doesn't the fact we had greens and independents win lower-house seats prove that there are other options beside the 2 major parties? Doesn't the current minority government - along with numerous examples of senates where the balance of power wasn't held by the major parties - prove that these parties can have significant influence? The libs will probably win the lower house easily (although I suspect the Greens will hold Melbourne and Wilkie will hold in Tasmania). But I think the senate will be interesting.
  - jsmeaton 13y ago
    Yes, there are other valid options beside the 2 major parties. Having them win individual seats in the lower house shows that the system works. But my argument was that it harms the major party they are most closest to at the macro level. If there were 100 seats and 50 went to the libs, but labor and the greens split 30-20, the libs are (most likely) going to form government even though the people voting greens would prefer a labor government. They get their local representative, but ultimately it means nothing, because the government that forms is on the political opposite of the spectrum. As pointed out in a sister comment though, this has only happened twice in our history, so I'm probably making a bigger deal than is appropriate. Agree that the senate is going to be interesting though.
    - nl 13y ago
      Yes that's a fair point. But it's worth noting that the conservative side of politics in Australia has had this problem for a while, and has a perfectly workable solution. The Liberal/National coalition has often held power, and yet Liberals & Nationals run against each other in elections. There are similar examples in other countries too. Coalitions are interesting because once the minor party has a role in government their views cannot be ignored so easily.
      - jsmeaton 13y ago
        And I think the only sensible course of action is for the greens and labor to form a similar coalition, or have some kind of agreement that the greens will always support labor in a minority government. The agreement that no minority government (by both the libs and labor) would be formed this election cycle could only of helped the liberals - not that they needed it.

cabalamat 13y ago

It could be argued that all democracies, by definition, use PR.

kibibu 13y ago

Australia has Instant-Runoff Voting for the House of Representatives, and a somewhat more crazy scheme in the senate. So yes, we have historically had "3rd" parties quite often, from the Australian Democrats in the 90's through to the Australian Greens now.