posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:06 AM
For those who dont know, Australia had an election over 2 weeks ago, & ever since, 3 men, so called Independants, had been holding the nation to
ransom, trying to get as much out of their moment in the spotlight as they can. It has got to the point a majority of us want a new election, & these
3 fools have pushed the nation too far with their game playing. After 17 days, a decision was made, it just took too long. So is there a solution to
ensure this absurd situation never happens again ? Heres an idea, I dont know if it can work for other nations, but it would work here.
We have 150 seats in which candidates can run for. A political party needs a majority of 76 seats to win government. Going through the election
results I have noticed that there are a considerable number of seats that have been claimed by a candidate who did not get the most votes personally,
but had to rely on some other candidate/s to give them their votes via the 'preference' system. This is the first thing we need to scrap, NO
If a no name candidate has just 1 vote more than someone from one of the major parties, the 'no name' wins the seat, no preferences, the locals have
spoken as to who represents their needs the best. Whoever has won the trust of the majority of their electorate, ie the most votes, even if it is just
1 vote, then I think that is a fair assumption that a majority of those voters want that person to represent them in parliament. Therefore, that
person should win the seat & not lose it because someone else managed to convince enough of the other candidates to give them their votes.
If I vote for candidate A, I do not expect, let alone want, my vote to go to candidate B. My vote goes to whoever I put a 1 next to, nobody else, &
party leaders should not get to decide where my vote goes to. This has been a big problem this past election thanks to people being under the
impression a vote for 'The Greens' is a vote against the 2 big parties, when in fact, after preferences, a vote for Green was a vote for Labor,
causing this deadlock.
We now have 150 seats where the 150 candidates with the most votes actually gets to represent the people who voted for them. End of story, no more
This has the potential to leave (as the last election did) no major party having the required 76 seat majority to lead the nation. I dont see this as
a problem, if we have 150 independant minds not restrained by party policy, free to vote how they want in parliament, then are we not getting the
debate & variety of ideas we need in parliament ? Lets take Penny Wong for example. She is a lesbian, she is Labor, Labor is against gay marriage &
therefore she is FORCED by party policy to vote against her own lifestyle. She awkwardly admitted this was the situation on live TV. That is not fair
on her & others.
So we now have the 150 representatives that the majority of people in their electorates actually voted for. Nice, next is the issue of the Speaker of
the House. The only good thing (that we the people know about) to come from all this blackmailing the 3 independants have been doing these past few
weeks is that the Speaker must be an independant. Cant agree more, the past few years with a Labor Speaker has been a farce, with non-labor
representatives shot down & shut up by the biased Speaker. He was pathetic & parliament was out of control.
The Speaker of the House should be elected to the seat by the 150 elected representatives WE voted for, they should be an independant, & their
position should be performance based. If they cant control the house, then theres a new Speaker voted in. Another option is for the Speaker to be
chosen from the judicial system, a high court judge for example, voted into the position with a majority of the 150 votes. If there are 3 people in
the running, one gets 50,one gets 49, the other person with 51 votes is the Speaker. No need for 76 votes.
Finally is the hardest, the Prime Minister. The major partys have a leader & deputy. If their party wins the majority of seats (with these
preferences) then their leader becomes the PM. As we saw a few months ago, the person WE vote for as PM is not always the person their party wants as
leader, & labor & union thugs backstabbed & kicked out our last ELECTED PM while still in office, making his deputy the new, UNelected PM. Not good
enough & not what we wanted.
One solution (of many Im sure) is for the political party's to put forward a number of candidates for PM. The number of candidates to be put forward
should be determined by the number of the 150 seats that party is running for, eg if you are running for 50-75 seats (33-50% of the electorates) you
are required to put up 2 nominees, greater than 75 seats, 3 nominees, less than 50 seats, a single nominee. On election day, we receive 3 small ballot
papers (1 extra to now). One is for the senate, one is for your local electorate (ie the person you want to be in one of the 150 seats), and the final
one is for the position of PM.
So how would that work ? Simple, each of the nominees for PM will be on the ballot paper, you tick one box only. Each of those ticks goes to that one
nominee & them alone, no preferences, no 3 weeks of backdoor deals. The nominee with the majority of the vote from all of Australia is the PM. That
means, eg, a Green could be voted by the nation as the PM, but as is likely, the Greens will not hold anywhere near the majority of seats.
How is this better ? Debate, rather than 3 years of argument & counter argument against the opposing partys policy just for the sake of disagreeing
with the opposition, the government will be forced to debate & agree on issues for the good of the entire nation, not any one partys policy agenda. No
one person can have an agenda & impose it on parts of the nation that need something different.
The major partys wont like this, but do we care ? There are 150 of them & over 22M of us left. They are there to serve us, not us them. If they want
their job, this may make them actually do it properly & productively for once, & will hold partys accountable for their election promises.
to be continued;