email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
In this post:
- Agamedes decries the negativity and nonsense of the just-past election campaign.
- In "Elections can be relevant!" Agamedes offers a better option...
- ... with a whole section on the Benefits of the proposed election regime.
- And then, an attempt to end on a positive note.
What just went wrong?!
We -- in Australia -- have just had a boring, negative, pointless political advertising campaign. We were offered fear on one side and hatred on the other. A third party gained support simply by keeping quiet.Now the results are in and there are no results.
What went wrong?
We are governed by a two-party political system. One party wins, the other loses. Unfortunately, neither party has any particular policy or direction, so it is difficult to distinguish the two.
Wikipedia describes policy as a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. Our politicians offer promises to spend money. The spending will do... something, with the aim of... well... gaining votes. There is no policy behind the promises. Only attempts to buy votes.
Either party can buy votes; all it takes is taxpayers' money. One party offers to spend our money on X so the other party offers to spend our money on a substitute for X.
Political parties do not have policy. They have replaced policy with bribes (funded by our own money!). In the absence of policy -- in the absence of an overall guide to decisions -- each party is reduced to making offers and counter-offers. Bribes and counter-bribes.
What to do? How to win the election advertising campaign?
Our political parties now offer personalities.
"Our personality is a woman with dyed red hair and a very carefully scripted real first name," shouts one party. "Our personality is a big-eared iron man of action with his own carefully stage managed family," shout the other party. "Our personality supports the environment and won't answer questions on how this is contradicted by his open immigration ideas," whispers the third party, knowing that no-one is really listening.
So we have an election based on the personality of one person per party. Since we are being told to vote for just one person -- there is no room for local issues. Local issues are a distraction from the personalities of the proposed leaders. "Your local representative?" Forget it!
Which brings me to the solution, for more effective election campaigns.
Elections can be relevant!
Stagger the elections: have just five elections for just five members, every month of each year.January 2011: Elect the members for five seats scattered across Australia. Sure, the candidates can start campaigning whenever they like. But January 2011 is "their" election month.
February 2011: Another five elections, for five different seats in various parts of Australia. No more than one election at a time in any one state.
And so on...
Why five elections per month? Because we can get through all 150 seats in just thirty months. We can have December and one other month "election-free" -- and still vote for every lower house member within three years.
January 2014: those first five seats are, again, up for grabs.
Benefits of staggered voting
There are plenty of benefits. Read the first section of this post and see what will be fixed. Here are some examples:No single election will be a revolution. With only five seats up for grabs, changes will be gradual. If a party loses all five seats in one month -- it will be a warning rather than a catastrophe (for that party). They will have time to get their act together, to try to prevent another five-seat loss. If they cannot learn then they will deserve to gradually disappear from parliament.
In some months, a particular minister -- with a key role in parliament -- will be up for election. The Minister for Population, for example, may be up for election in July 2012. So July 2012 is the month in which the government's official Population activities are up for public scrutiny. Population will be an issue for that month's election.
But the "population" election is just one of five, you think...
Because there are only five seats up for election at any one time, other people have the time to focus on each of those five elections. People with strong views on population issues will be able to focus their efforts on the re-election of the current Minister for Population.
Staggered elections allow issues to be more fully presented and discussed.
At the same time, staggered elections will lead to more focus on local issues.
With the current system, politicians are forced to concentrate on issues with an Australia-wide appeal. A new school in one electorate is of no interest to people outside that electorate. So the politicians will offer a new school curriculum, to be forced onto every school across Australia. A new school is a practical benefit to a small group of electors. A new universal curriculum is (or may be) a universal vote-catcher.
Better yet -- for the politicians -- if a broad new idea sounds good, it will win votes from people who are not really affected. "Doesn't affect me," thinks the donkey voter, "But I'm sure that it will be good for them."
When elections are run for just five electorates at a time, local issues will demand more focus.
What about the "big" issues -- population and a national school curriculum, for example? No worries. As with my earlier example of population issues:
When the relevant minister is up for election, those who care will be there.
When a minister is up for re-election, will local issues get a back seat?
Yes. But not as far back as under the present system.
A politician wins a seat by supporting local issues and concerns. The politician then becomes, for example, Minister for Education. The minister works on education issues -- and forgets about local issues...
Does the electorate care about education? If yes, great: work on education but don't ignore the local issues of your electorate. If your electorate has no interest in education -- or dislikes your actions on education -- stop now! If that politician continues to act against their electorate's wishes -- they will lose the next election.
What?! How can that be fair?!
When a politician runs for parliament, they offer promises to their electorate. If that politician then becomes a minister -- does something other than what they promised -- then they deserve to be voted out. This has a major benefit: a politician will consider very carefully before they accept a position which is against their voters' wishes.
Ah well... I've run down. It's surprisingly hard to find positive benefits for any aspect of politicking.
I've done my best to present a better alternative to the current system. Since my suggestion does not promise a 4.1% increase in politicians' salaries, it is unlikely to be accepted. That's life.
On the brighter side
Our current electoral debacle has led to a stalemate: neither side can govern. Which means -- for a while at least -- that Australia is protected from the nonsensical laws which get passed when politicians are given actual power to govern.A hung parliament is our best protection against self-serving and incompetent politicians.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment