On 4/07/2007 rodw wrote:
>
>The Australian system is widely regarded around the world as producing
>the most moderate style of politicians as they can not bow down to any
>small minority group as then they alienate a larger part of the population.
Who gives it this wide regard?
Compulsory voting leads to easily predictable outcomes. The country hinges on a handful of swing states, mostly in WA, Queensland and Tassie. Political policies target these communities. Howard got a majority in the Senate last time by going to Tas a week before the election and telling the loggers, ``vote for me and I'll let you keep on woodchipping away''. It worked.
The worst part of compulsory voting is that a politician doesn't have to merely inspire someone to vote for him (or her). You have to get people to CHANGE their votes and political persuasions. And it also means politicians find it easier to scare people into voting for them, by playing on a voter's negativity. Howard's got this down pat: Tampa, ``interest rates will go to 17 per cent under Labor'', etc.
Most people get rusted on to one party or another, and even when that party is failing in their eyes, they'll say, ``well they're all a bunch of bastards anyways, so since I have to vote for one, might as be the usual one''.
This is why we get stuck with Governments for ever.
Australia has only had the courage to change its Government FIVE TIMES since World War II. Four, if you don't count the Dismissal, which I don't. That, to me, is the sign of a quagmire, not a healthy democracy.
|