lederhosen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lederhosen) wrote2004-09-29 12:31 pm
lederhosen) wrote2004-09-29 12:31 pm
Missing: one political party
(To avoid confusion, I'm talking about *Australian* politics here. Sharing names with US parties doesn't mean they're similar...)
Last Sunday, we were talking politics with a bunch of friends, and I suddenly found myself wondering: where are the Democrats? We have an election in less than two weeks, and I haven't heard a peep out of them. I'll admit to not watching much TV, but I read the papers, and I have plenty of politically-minded friends, and until I brought it up not one of them had mentioned the Democrats in my hearing. Have I missed something, or have they really sunk that far into obscurity?
I was reminded of this by an email from the Greens in which they expressed their annoyance that the Democrats are preferencing both Fred Nile and 'Family First' ahead of the Greens in the Senate ballot.
Speaking of which, WTF? Does anybody know the rationale for that decision? It sounds unpleasantly like a dog-in-the-manger thing.
To make some sense of the above, some generalisations:
Australia has two-and-a-half major political parties: Labour (ALP), Liberal, and National. Nominally, the ALP are the "workers' party", but they've gradually drifted to the right trying to capture the middle ground.
The Liberals, despite the name, are socially and fiscally conservative. Although they talk about "traditional values" and "family" a lot, actual religion isn't invoked much in Australian politics these days. The typical Australian attitude to religion is "you do your thing, I'll do mine", and playing the religion card is a good way to win over a minority at the expense of the majority.
The Nationals used to be the Country Party. They're also socially and fiscally conservative, but where Liberals are oriented towards the small businessman, the Nationals are oriented towards farmers. They're the smaller half of the Liberal-National coalition; that obliges them to make compromises that sometimes alienate their supporters (some of whom then bleed off to One Nation etc), but they're not really big enough to go it alone. For most purposes, you can think of the Liberals and Nationals as two wings of the same party.
Those are the majors, but Australia's electoral system is a lot more favourable to minor parties than the USA's. Both Representatives and Senate are elected via a preferential vote (aka 'instant run-off'), which means you don't have to worry about throwing your vote away by voting for a minor candidate; your votes flow on to your next preference. That whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thing doesn't apply here. The Senate also has proportional representation - if you can capture 20% of the vote, you'll get 20% of the seats - and it's there that the minors are most significant. It's quite common for a minor party or independent to hold the balance of power in the Senate, at which point they're in a position to make deals.
Until a few years back, the most important of the minor parties were the Australian Democrats. They started out as a splinter from the Liberals; their purpose was to act as a check on the major parties, as expressed by their slogan "Keeping the bastards honest". Socially and environmentally they were to the left of the ALP, despite their origins; their fiscal policy varied, and (like many minor parties) they were quieter about fiscal policy than other matters. They were also the standard 'protest party' for Coalition/ALP supporters who wanted to kick their own party around; you could vote Democrat and preference the party you really supported. At their peak, the Democrats would poll around 5-10% of the primary vote.
(I used to vote Democrat, usually preferencing the ALP, both for their policies and because they *did* help balance the excesses of the major parties.)
Meanwhile, the Australian Greens were a comparatively small party; effectively they were a single-issue party, and that limited their appeal considerably. Nationally, I think they usually got around 1-2% of the vote.
Then, over the last five to ten years, the Democrats self-combusted. They passed the Coalition's Goods & Services Tax, which alienated a lot of their support base, and they ran through a string of leaders, none of whom stuck. One jumped ship to join the ALP, and the current one embarrassed himself last Christmas by getting drunk and assaulting another Senator on the floor of Parliament; AFAICT, the only reason he's still in charge is that nobody else wants the job.
Meanwhile, the Greens gradually broadened their appeal, taking more interest in social issues as the Democrats got more distracted. They managed to avoid leadership crises by not having a formal leadership - while Bob Brown has become the de facto voice of the party, he doesn't officially run them.
When the Iraq war came up, the Democrats were in disarray, and Labour was reluctant to speak against it, so the Greens - especially Brown and Kerry Nettle - became *the* political opposition to the war. I think it was around that time that the Greens took over as the protest party of choice*, and the Democrats haven't done anything to claw that support back.
Some time back, well-known environmentalist and musician Peter Garrett expressed his intention to enter politics, and everybody was trying to figure out which party he'd join (in the end, he picked Labour). Bob Brown's response was something like this: "Obviously we'd love to have Peter as a candidate. But whichever party he joins, I know he believes in many of the same things we do, and we'll view him as an ally."
That sort of attitude's a big part of why my vote shifted from Democrat to Green, and I think for many of the others who shifted, too. I like the *idea* of the Democrats better - Greens are still too close to a one-issue party for my comfort, even if it's an important issue - but at least the Greens remember that it *is* about the issues. By preferencing Fred Nile ahead of the Greens, the Democrats have confirmed my impression of them: they've become so wrapped up in politicking that they've forgotten why they got into politics in the first place.
*Well, One Nation is also a protest party for some people, but a very different bunch of people; they're not competing for the same demographics as the Greens and Dems.
Anybody see a chance for the Australian Democrats to recover what they've lost? Or is it time to declare them dead, and move on?
And apropos of nothing in particular, Uncle Joe meets Alfred E. Neumann.
Last Sunday, we were talking politics with a bunch of friends, and I suddenly found myself wondering: where are the Democrats? We have an election in less than two weeks, and I haven't heard a peep out of them. I'll admit to not watching much TV, but I read the papers, and I have plenty of politically-minded friends, and until I brought it up not one of them had mentioned the Democrats in my hearing. Have I missed something, or have they really sunk that far into obscurity?
I was reminded of this by an email from the Greens in which they expressed their annoyance that the Democrats are preferencing both Fred Nile and 'Family First' ahead of the Greens in the Senate ballot.
Speaking of which, WTF? Does anybody know the rationale for that decision? It sounds unpleasantly like a dog-in-the-manger thing.
To make some sense of the above, some generalisations:
Australia has two-and-a-half major political parties: Labour (ALP), Liberal, and National. Nominally, the ALP are the "workers' party", but they've gradually drifted to the right trying to capture the middle ground.
The Liberals, despite the name, are socially and fiscally conservative. Although they talk about "traditional values" and "family" a lot, actual religion isn't invoked much in Australian politics these days. The typical Australian attitude to religion is "you do your thing, I'll do mine", and playing the religion card is a good way to win over a minority at the expense of the majority.
The Nationals used to be the Country Party. They're also socially and fiscally conservative, but where Liberals are oriented towards the small businessman, the Nationals are oriented towards farmers. They're the smaller half of the Liberal-National coalition; that obliges them to make compromises that sometimes alienate their supporters (some of whom then bleed off to One Nation etc), but they're not really big enough to go it alone. For most purposes, you can think of the Liberals and Nationals as two wings of the same party.
Those are the majors, but Australia's electoral system is a lot more favourable to minor parties than the USA's. Both Representatives and Senate are elected via a preferential vote (aka 'instant run-off'), which means you don't have to worry about throwing your vote away by voting for a minor candidate; your votes flow on to your next preference. That whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thing doesn't apply here. The Senate also has proportional representation - if you can capture 20% of the vote, you'll get 20% of the seats - and it's there that the minors are most significant. It's quite common for a minor party or independent to hold the balance of power in the Senate, at which point they're in a position to make deals.
Until a few years back, the most important of the minor parties were the Australian Democrats. They started out as a splinter from the Liberals; their purpose was to act as a check on the major parties, as expressed by their slogan "Keeping the bastards honest". Socially and environmentally they were to the left of the ALP, despite their origins; their fiscal policy varied, and (like many minor parties) they were quieter about fiscal policy than other matters. They were also the standard 'protest party' for Coalition/ALP supporters who wanted to kick their own party around; you could vote Democrat and preference the party you really supported. At their peak, the Democrats would poll around 5-10% of the primary vote.
(I used to vote Democrat, usually preferencing the ALP, both for their policies and because they *did* help balance the excesses of the major parties.)
Meanwhile, the Australian Greens were a comparatively small party; effectively they were a single-issue party, and that limited their appeal considerably. Nationally, I think they usually got around 1-2% of the vote.
Then, over the last five to ten years, the Democrats self-combusted. They passed the Coalition's Goods & Services Tax, which alienated a lot of their support base, and they ran through a string of leaders, none of whom stuck. One jumped ship to join the ALP, and the current one embarrassed himself last Christmas by getting drunk and assaulting another Senator on the floor of Parliament; AFAICT, the only reason he's still in charge is that nobody else wants the job.
Meanwhile, the Greens gradually broadened their appeal, taking more interest in social issues as the Democrats got more distracted. They managed to avoid leadership crises by not having a formal leadership - while Bob Brown has become the de facto voice of the party, he doesn't officially run them.
When the Iraq war came up, the Democrats were in disarray, and Labour was reluctant to speak against it, so the Greens - especially Brown and Kerry Nettle - became *the* political opposition to the war. I think it was around that time that the Greens took over as the protest party of choice*, and the Democrats haven't done anything to claw that support back.
Some time back, well-known environmentalist and musician Peter Garrett expressed his intention to enter politics, and everybody was trying to figure out which party he'd join (in the end, he picked Labour). Bob Brown's response was something like this: "Obviously we'd love to have Peter as a candidate. But whichever party he joins, I know he believes in many of the same things we do, and we'll view him as an ally."
That sort of attitude's a big part of why my vote shifted from Democrat to Green, and I think for many of the others who shifted, too. I like the *idea* of the Democrats better - Greens are still too close to a one-issue party for my comfort, even if it's an important issue - but at least the Greens remember that it *is* about the issues. By preferencing Fred Nile ahead of the Greens, the Democrats have confirmed my impression of them: they've become so wrapped up in politicking that they've forgotten why they got into politics in the first place.
*Well, One Nation is also a protest party for some people, but a very different bunch of people; they're not competing for the same demographics as the Greens and Dems.
Anybody see a chance for the Australian Democrats to recover what they've lost? Or is it time to declare them dead, and move on?
And apropos of nothing in particular, Uncle Joe meets Alfred E. Neumann.
no subject
On the other hand, I'd guess they have a major party ahead of either of those groups, so that's more a slap in the face for the greens than a meaningfull influence on the results.
no subject
They don't seem to. According to the abovelinked preference info (now that I've fixed the link), leaving out some other parties & independents, the Democrats' preferences for NSW Senate are:
1. Democrats
2. Family First
3. Liberals for Forests
4. Christian Democrats (Rev Fred Nile)
5. Greens
6. 50% Liberals/Nationals, 50% Labor Party
7. 50% Labor Party, 50% Liberals/Nationals
8. One Nation
AFAIK, neither Family First nor Liberals for Forests are likely to get a Senate seat. Both Nile and the Greens have a significant chance of doing so; putting Nile ahead of Greens could well have more than symbolic effect.
Besides which, the way the Senate poll works, even if there *was* a major party ahead of them the ordering could still be important. Remember that in a Senate ballot, preferences don't stop when you reach a winning candidate - they flow on down, at a reduced value.
For instance: let's suppose we're electing five senators from an electorate of 3 million. To get a seat, you therefore need to win 500,001 votes (one more than 1/6th of the electorate).
If you win a million and two primary votes, you therefore have twice as many as you need. You get a seat, and those votes are redistributed to the next name on the list (now counting for half their original value). So even preferencing Labour ahead of both, the relative positions of Greens and CDs could grant one a seat at the other's expense.
(If anybody wants me to explain why it's done this way, let me know. It sounds complicated, and it does take a while to count - finalising the Senate results can take a couple of weeks - but it actually works out pretty well. It means people don't have to embark on guessing games of the "I like Tom best, but he's going to get in anyway... maybe I can get Harry in as well, by voting for him instead... but if everybody thinks the same way, maybe Tom *won't* get in" variety. Instead, you just vote for Tom, preferencing Harry; if Tom only needed half your vote to get in, then the other half goes to Harry instead.)
no subject
The Nationals ...they're not really big enough to go it alone...
The most popular political party in the country is the ALP - neither the Libs or the Nats have enough support to rule alone and that's why they have an uneasy coalition. The Nats really only hold a handful of seats, in a few states.
The Senate also has proportional representation
The Senate is only proportional on a state by state basis. If you look at the country as a whole, it's far from proportional, granting the same representation to small states like Tasmania as it does to NSW with many times the population. Bob Brown may not have as much power as he does if he lived elsewhere (but then out of Tasmania, he wouldn't be the same Bob Brown anyway). I'd like to see true proportional representation but it would be hard to administor, as issues vary so much across the regions.
Socially and environmentally they were to the left of the ALP, despite their origins
Debateable. They started off sitting squarely between the two majors and did very well out of that arrangement - but that was back in the days when the ALP really did represent socialist values and the Libs were all about free enterprise. With the emergence of environmental issues in the late seventies, the Dems were the only party to take note. They were never a true left wing party despite this perception, and endeavoured to maintain that middle ground.
Eventually they lost ground to the Greens on that particular issue and IMHO started to burn in the late eighties. They were racked with different interest groups and turned on each other, alienating their power base. Many good people were thrown out (including my step-mother, former Senator Jean Jenkins and my father) and they started to churn through leaders. I thought they were on to a good thing with Natasha but alas, they wouldn't give her a chance to get on with it.
Anybody see a chance for the Australian Democrats to recover what they've lost? Or is it time to declare them dead, and move on?
The rot started back in the days of Cheryl Kernot - I suspect these days they're a spent force which is a pity. My main reasons for leaving the Dems after 20 years and joining the ALP are mainly due to all the pettiness, the sour dealing of Meg Lees to save her own political skin at the expense of the members and the ultimate truth that to make a difference, being a part of a larger, better organised party will achieve more. Perhaps these ideas helped shape Peter Garrett's choice too?
they've become so wrapped up in politicking that they've forgotten why they got into politics in the first place
Preference deals have always gone on, and always will - at the end of the day, each candidate or party has to place someone above someone else and for the small parties, the support of another small party (even one from the opposite side of the spectrum) can often get you over the line. Only the smallest parties can afford not to play politics and if the Greens (as predicted) become the third force in Australian politics with this federal election, they will inevitably join in the merry game too. Morals are frequently sacrificed for the big picture. It's not pretty, but it's true.
no subject
no subject
I could understand if this was a preference deal. Maybe not agree, but at least understand. But Nile isn't returning the favour. Looking at the Christian Democrats' tickets (omitting various other parties):
1: Christian Democrats.
2: Family First.
3-6: Libs/Nationals, ALP, One Nation, Liberals for Forests (varying orders in three different tickets).
7: Democrats.
8: Greens.
The only explanation I'm left with is pettiness, which is a big part of what drove me away from the Dems too. Not that I was an official member, but I was a reliable Democrat voter until about five years back.
Mixed feelings about NSD. I'm not sure she was a great choice for leader - she struck me as having been picked more for media value than for any other reason. But having picked her, they would've done better to see it through instead of chopping & changing again.
I think you're probably right about Peter Garrett, and I don't begrudge him that decision; I think he quite possibly can do more good in the ALP than the Greens, and I'm less concerned with what flag he flies than how he votes.
no subject
I have noted, however, that int he last two days the Democrats have, in an attempt for some influence but in more of a cop-out move in my eyes, they have officially endorsed the ALP for their preferetial votes, standing behind the line next to them. They've also been hitting both parties hard with tax policies, reform and abolishing "tax creep" (seen in today's Herald-Sun article).
IMHO, the Democrats are a spent force: I agree they've wallowed for too long now and now no longer have the strength or influence they once used to quietly attract. Other fringe parties like the Families First party and One Nation *shudder* don't have any sort of steam or momentum, or other policies apart from their main one.
no subject
I'd love to see run-off voting implemented here. However, I don't think the Republicans would stand for it, as it would be a serious disadvantage for them.
no subject
(Of course, compulsory voting also affects this equation.)
no subject