All this new-found interest in seat gerrymandering makes me happy I must admit. It has always been a topic of interest for me. There are many views on how best to set up seat boundaries, and I doubt any meaningful consensus can be found. But this piece is on a related topic, that of the unit of representation.
The theoretically best option, from a democratic point of view would be where each vote counts equally, via the rather sexist catchphrase of 'one man, one vote'. This is usually viewed via a lens of direct elections, such as the US presidential election. Unbeknownst to most is that the US presidential election violates this mantra. The US was set up, like Malaysia and Australia as a federation. The system to elect the American president comes via the use of electoral colleges (something like seats) within states, where the winner takes all. So for example, say Nebraska has 25 electoral colleges. Everyone votes as usual, ticking the box as per normal. Votes are tallied per electoral college. Say Candidate X wins 13 electoral colleges and Candidate Y wins 12. Candidate X is declared as Nebraska's winner and carries ALL 25 seats. Now, don't tell me Malaysia's system is undemocratic and ask the US for help when they have a system even further removed from 'one man, one vote'. Al Gore won more votes than George W Bush in the 2000 election and lost. It does happen people...
The American system exists because the federation is made up of states, not individuals. 'One man, one vote' would also violate the Malaysia agreement where 4 countries (Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak) got together to form Malaysia. It was agreed that Malaya will not get more than 2/3rds of the parliamentary seats, though when Singapore left that was conveniently forgotten and they took 75% of the seats. Now it is inching closer to 80%. This agreement was signed to ensure Malaya, as the most powerful country in the federation would not lord it over the rest. If we are to apply 'one man, one vote' to Malaysia in terms of seats per population, then the agreement is abrogated (it already is to be frank). Malaysia, it seems is also a case of a federation formed by states/countries, not individuals.
Parts of Australia, till not so long ago also had rural votes counting double so as to ensure that country voices would not be drowned out by city voices. The argument was that 'one man, one vote' would over-represent city concerns relative to country concerns and that it would be fairer that the minority has an 'extra' vote.
All this of course matches in with the setting of seat boundaries, where I will next write a short piece on gerrymandering, but for now, we must ask whether 'one man, one vote' is truly representational beyond its theoretical nicety? Two issues to ponder:
1. What about minority rights? In a country like Egypt where Coptic Christians are getting a raw deal their voice is small. Should they receive 'extra' votes? Personally, I think that if the country is truly democratic, minorities will get protected so I fail to agree with such assertions.
2. Who/what is the true unit of representation? In the US it is the state (electoral college), as it is in Malaysia (via watered down safeguards for East Malaysia). But another federation (Australia) has by-passed this by ensuring all seats have equal number of voters with some minor variations. In both the US and Australian cases, an equal number of senate (upper house) seats are allocated per state. Nevertheless in all cases, bigger states have a bigger say via larger electoral colleges and/or seats.
Issue 1 seems to have been marginalised (certainly in Australia) in exchange for democratic safeguards, but I believe it is the second issue that divides people. Who should represent the democratic voice? The people or the states?
Showing posts with label Politics - Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics - Australia. Show all posts
13.9.07
Canadian Meddling in Australia's Domestic Politics?!
WTF...???!!! Aren't these people too busy clubbing baby seals to death and persuading people on foreign trains that despite popular opinion, it is Americans who speak like Canadians, and not the other way around...?
Have they suddenly picked up a trait of their southern neighbour, and decided to tell other countries how to run their affairs? Well, probably not, but Canadian PM Harper ended up falling slam bang in the middle of our phoney election campaigning. So poor old Harper finds himself hanging around Canberra after the APEC meeting to give a speech to the Australian parliament just when good old Ausie PM Little Rodent Johnny Howard is fighting his own conservative colleagues about his and his parties political future.
And so we go to the press conference where Harper and Howard answer 2 questions each from the journalists from both countries. Howard is immediately bombarded about his future and Harper perhaps feeling left out (apparently no journo cares about Aussie-Canadian relations) decides to defend his conservative colleague (or mentor as he called him...good God Canada, lock up your daughters....) and says the great citizens of Australia should not risk the future by jumping ship when things are going so swimmingly well. WTF...? Even good old Dubya refrained from backing Howard in such terms and there are the best of friends!!!
Perhaps Harper owes Howard something hidden in some dark corner somewhere because the recently released UN declaration on indigenous rights has not been accepted by a number of countries including Australia, NZ, US and Canada (see the connection between white colonisation, suppression of the indigenous community and continued denials of the truth here...?). The thing is Canada was initially supportive of it (in its draft form at least) and changed its mind after extensive lobbying from the Australian government.
Maybe it is good old Australia meddling in Canadian affairs then...? Back to the seals boys, I have a few shrimps to put on the barbie before I grab a ride on my kangaroo to work...
WTF...???!!! Aren't these people too busy clubbing baby seals to death and persuading people on foreign trains that despite popular opinion, it is Americans who speak like Canadians, and not the other way around...?
Have they suddenly picked up a trait of their southern neighbour, and decided to tell other countries how to run their affairs? Well, probably not, but Canadian PM Harper ended up falling slam bang in the middle of our phoney election campaigning. So poor old Harper finds himself hanging around Canberra after the APEC meeting to give a speech to the Australian parliament just when good old Ausie PM Little Rodent Johnny Howard is fighting his own conservative colleagues about his and his parties political future.
And so we go to the press conference where Harper and Howard answer 2 questions each from the journalists from both countries. Howard is immediately bombarded about his future and Harper perhaps feeling left out (apparently no journo cares about Aussie-Canadian relations) decides to defend his conservative colleague (or mentor as he called him...good God Canada, lock up your daughters....) and says the great citizens of Australia should not risk the future by jumping ship when things are going so swimmingly well. WTF...? Even good old Dubya refrained from backing Howard in such terms and there are the best of friends!!!
Perhaps Harper owes Howard something hidden in some dark corner somewhere because the recently released UN declaration on indigenous rights has not been accepted by a number of countries including Australia, NZ, US and Canada (see the connection between white colonisation, suppression of the indigenous community and continued denials of the truth here...?). The thing is Canada was initially supportive of it (in its draft form at least) and changed its mind after extensive lobbying from the Australian government.
Maybe it is good old Australia meddling in Canadian affairs then...? Back to the seals boys, I have a few shrimps to put on the barbie before I grab a ride on my kangaroo to work...
21.8.07
Teflon Rudd-Does Anything Ever Stick on Him?
Kevin Rudd, it seems, can do no wrong and this is infuriating Little Johnny and his ertswhile sidekicks. Well, it's not strictly true-he can do wrong; it's just that the electorate seems not too care one iota!!! Personally, I think his policy to project himself as a younger version of Little Johnny Howard has worked a treat-there's not much that the govt can attack him with except say that if he wants to behave like the govt itself ('echo-nomics') then stick with us, the mob that have delivered the economic goodies....
Problem is, it does not matter what they say, it is evidently clear to me that change is in the air. The Coalition might still win (I think they will) but will limp home dangerously injured, and maybe without Little Johnny if Macine McKew pulls off the improbable. It'll be a lame duck govt waiting for annihilation in the next federal election. No one trusts that Howard will stay on another full term (if he gets re-elected), the rats will try to desert the sinking ship (off to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry....) and those staying on will have ambitions of forming govt after a spell in the opposition.
Of course, Rudd can't fool all the people all the time, and after a while, he will be seen as an the opportunistic snivelling bastard that he really is...actually I think people do know that, they just don't want Little Johnny anymore....
Is there no one better than Rudd to take the helm?
Kevin Rudd, it seems, can do no wrong and this is infuriating Little Johnny and his ertswhile sidekicks. Well, it's not strictly true-he can do wrong; it's just that the electorate seems not too care one iota!!! Personally, I think his policy to project himself as a younger version of Little Johnny Howard has worked a treat-there's not much that the govt can attack him with except say that if he wants to behave like the govt itself ('echo-nomics') then stick with us, the mob that have delivered the economic goodies....
Problem is, it does not matter what they say, it is evidently clear to me that change is in the air. The Coalition might still win (I think they will) but will limp home dangerously injured, and maybe without Little Johnny if Macine McKew pulls off the improbable. It'll be a lame duck govt waiting for annihilation in the next federal election. No one trusts that Howard will stay on another full term (if he gets re-elected), the rats will try to desert the sinking ship (off to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry....) and those staying on will have ambitions of forming govt after a spell in the opposition.
Of course, Rudd can't fool all the people all the time, and after a while, he will be seen as an the opportunistic snivelling bastard that he really is...actually I think people do know that, they just don't want Little Johnny anymore....
Is there no one better than Rudd to take the helm?
29.10.06
Daylight Savings - Democracy v Elitism?
So the daylight savings debate begins again in Queensland and WA. Once again it's the urban south v the countryside. I for one have been very disturbed by the nature of this current debate.
What worries me is the spin that the supporters (Perth and Brisbane majority) has put on this debate-basically by calling their opponents dumb country hicks. The usual arguments come up; that these people are scared their curtains will fade, that they fear their cows will get confused etc...Their perceived superior intelligentsia only comes up as arrogant, and rightly so. More worrying is in WA, where 3 referenda in 31 years has seen daylight savings defeated, so now the vote will go to parliament on a 3 year trial. Yes, the country hicks don't want it, so let's ignore them and get on with it anyway. In Queensland it was defeated once, so perhaps another referendum is overdue.
The argument put forward in Queensland in favour of daylight savings is simple; it'll allow for better trade with the business centres of Sydney and Melbourne, and that Brisbanites can enjoy the twilight better. Both are debatable and easily refutable IMO. First, different time zones have not managed to halt the march of globalisation. The world has not adopted the same time zone as NY city. Second, Queensland has yet to declare bankruptcy upon the dearth of business dealings due to daylight savings in the southern states for half the year. WA (3 hours behind half the year) is yet to turn into a banana republic. Also, the twilight in Brisbane is a myth-what twilight? It's also too hot and humid most of the time for us to enjoy it. We'll stay indoors an hour longer and use more electricity.
Of course, a simple solution can be found, in that the Greater Perth region and SE Queensland can adopt it without forcing the other regions to go along. British Columbia in Canada has it, and that province has yet to turn into a banana republic either. But to do so would destroy one of the arguments of the 'inteligentsia,' that of possible trade dislocation. Now Cairns and Townsville will suffer as Brisbane moves its clock forward an hour, and after all shouldn't Brisbane be beholden to the rest of the state as the capital city rather than to Sydney and Melbourne as trading centres?
It's the arrogance of the city that causes country folk to back extremists like Hanson and Katter. We need to learn to treat them with respect. Also, I don't want to watch my English football an hour later!! I'm too old to handle that these days...
So the daylight savings debate begins again in Queensland and WA. Once again it's the urban south v the countryside. I for one have been very disturbed by the nature of this current debate.
What worries me is the spin that the supporters (Perth and Brisbane majority) has put on this debate-basically by calling their opponents dumb country hicks. The usual arguments come up; that these people are scared their curtains will fade, that they fear their cows will get confused etc...Their perceived superior intelligentsia only comes up as arrogant, and rightly so. More worrying is in WA, where 3 referenda in 31 years has seen daylight savings defeated, so now the vote will go to parliament on a 3 year trial. Yes, the country hicks don't want it, so let's ignore them and get on with it anyway. In Queensland it was defeated once, so perhaps another referendum is overdue.
The argument put forward in Queensland in favour of daylight savings is simple; it'll allow for better trade with the business centres of Sydney and Melbourne, and that Brisbanites can enjoy the twilight better. Both are debatable and easily refutable IMO. First, different time zones have not managed to halt the march of globalisation. The world has not adopted the same time zone as NY city. Second, Queensland has yet to declare bankruptcy upon the dearth of business dealings due to daylight savings in the southern states for half the year. WA (3 hours behind half the year) is yet to turn into a banana republic. Also, the twilight in Brisbane is a myth-what twilight? It's also too hot and humid most of the time for us to enjoy it. We'll stay indoors an hour longer and use more electricity.
Of course, a simple solution can be found, in that the Greater Perth region and SE Queensland can adopt it without forcing the other regions to go along. British Columbia in Canada has it, and that province has yet to turn into a banana republic either. But to do so would destroy one of the arguments of the 'inteligentsia,' that of possible trade dislocation. Now Cairns and Townsville will suffer as Brisbane moves its clock forward an hour, and after all shouldn't Brisbane be beholden to the rest of the state as the capital city rather than to Sydney and Melbourne as trading centres?
It's the arrogance of the city that causes country folk to back extremists like Hanson and Katter. We need to learn to treat them with respect. Also, I don't want to watch my English football an hour later!! I'm too old to handle that these days...
17.10.06
The Australian Nuclear Energy Debate - 50 Years Too Late?
Well, no surprises that Little Johnny throws his weight behind nuclear energy. He states the need to consider it in the wake of high oil prices and as a non-polluting energy source. Nevermind the former, but he has never given a hoot about the environment. He justs wants to go nuclear to boost the uranium industry (selling to India too, the non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and split the environmental lobby, just like he did the Republican movement. He simply wants to control the agenda so Australia will do as his donors wish.
Having said that, some environmentalists are also talking about re-engaging constructively in the nuclear debate as a non-polluting energy source while renewable energy becomes better and cheaper, and this has led to quite a split within the movement. Social and environmentally progressive nations like Finland use nuclear energy; why shouldn't an energy inefficient nation like Australia do so?
I have 2 issues with going down the nuclear path. One is that despite being non-polluting, we don't know how to dispose of nuclear wastes properly. Not yet anyway. If we can in the future then that is another matter altogether.
Second, the argument for using nuclear energy in the interim worries me because of the prohibitive sunk and fixed costs in creating a nuclear power plant. No government in their right mind will withdraw their plant after 3 years of operations once alternative renewable energy becomes viable after spending hundreds of millions, if not more on nuclear power. As well, the time, energy and money spent on nuclear energy will only take away from investments in alternative renewable energy, and that will ensure nuclear energy continues in the long term at the detriment of renewable energy.
As well, there is something to be said that the international nuclear lobby wants Australia to go down this path as the Aussie desert is a good spot to store nuclear waste. I don't know how accurate that is but I wouldn't discount it.
At the end of the day we do need a healthy debate about nuclear energy. I believe that in a free and fair debate the nuclear lobby will lose, but I have no doubt it will be manipulated by the powers that be in order to ensure debate is stifled and twisted in their favour. By the same token, those opposed to nuclear energy shouldn't try to silence those looking for a debate. Don't act like the nuclear lobby-win the argument at the grassroots and then take on the lobby as a powerful unified movement from below.
Well, no surprises that Little Johnny throws his weight behind nuclear energy. He states the need to consider it in the wake of high oil prices and as a non-polluting energy source. Nevermind the former, but he has never given a hoot about the environment. He justs wants to go nuclear to boost the uranium industry (selling to India too, the non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and split the environmental lobby, just like he did the Republican movement. He simply wants to control the agenda so Australia will do as his donors wish.
Having said that, some environmentalists are also talking about re-engaging constructively in the nuclear debate as a non-polluting energy source while renewable energy becomes better and cheaper, and this has led to quite a split within the movement. Social and environmentally progressive nations like Finland use nuclear energy; why shouldn't an energy inefficient nation like Australia do so?
I have 2 issues with going down the nuclear path. One is that despite being non-polluting, we don't know how to dispose of nuclear wastes properly. Not yet anyway. If we can in the future then that is another matter altogether.
Second, the argument for using nuclear energy in the interim worries me because of the prohibitive sunk and fixed costs in creating a nuclear power plant. No government in their right mind will withdraw their plant after 3 years of operations once alternative renewable energy becomes viable after spending hundreds of millions, if not more on nuclear power. As well, the time, energy and money spent on nuclear energy will only take away from investments in alternative renewable energy, and that will ensure nuclear energy continues in the long term at the detriment of renewable energy.
As well, there is something to be said that the international nuclear lobby wants Australia to go down this path as the Aussie desert is a good spot to store nuclear waste. I don't know how accurate that is but I wouldn't discount it.
At the end of the day we do need a healthy debate about nuclear energy. I believe that in a free and fair debate the nuclear lobby will lose, but I have no doubt it will be manipulated by the powers that be in order to ensure debate is stifled and twisted in their favour. By the same token, those opposed to nuclear energy shouldn't try to silence those looking for a debate. Don't act like the nuclear lobby-win the argument at the grassroots and then take on the lobby as a powerful unified movement from below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)