The Liberal Party's Obsession over Mandates (Should Fred Nile be concerned?)

Since the Liberal Party has ascended to the dais of power in Australia, a considerable amount of chatter has popped up around the idea of ‘mandates’ and whether or not the Liberal Party has one in its possession. I have to admit, I find the whole concept quite interesting and confusing.

The argument that the Liberal Party seems to running goes something like this:

1.     Party X has supported policies P, R, Q over the last few years leading up to an election.

2.     Party X has won enough seats to form a Government in the Federal House of Representatives.

3.     Therefore, all the other parties should respect the ‘will of the people’ and allow Party X to implement policies P, R, & Q, unimpeded.

This argument seems to be advocating for a kind of ‘winner takes all’ practice, where the party that forms government is given free reign to implement all of their policies (or at-least their most ‘prominent’ policies). One issues I have with this perspective is that it seems to ignore the fact that there are a multitude of other elected representatives, who are not a part of the ‘ruling party’, but who were just as legitimately elected to represent their constituents. In fact, the Liberal Party has just spent the last three years denouncing the Labor Party for not strictly following the policies, which they brought to the 2010 election. Now it seems the Liberal Party are suggesting such ‘breaks with the public’s trust’ are the morally right thing to do.

Despite this concern, my strongest reaction has been one of confusion, as all this speculation over the existence of mandates seems entirely unnecessary. Why do we need to argue about these ill-defined and overly subjective conditions, under which a victorious Party can claim a mandate for certain policies? We already seem to have a very clear and simple test for whether or not a Government has a mandate to enact a certain policy, and that is, for the Government to attempt to have relevant legislation passed by both houses of the Federal Parliament. If you can get it passed, then you have a mandate for that policy. On the other hand, if the Australian people have elected representatives, who choose to block the passage of the legislation, then you don’t have a mandate.

Am I missing something here? Is this not how our system of governance was designed to function? If a Government feels very strongly that the people voted ‘wrong’, then they can always trigger a double dissolution and hope that people 'get it right' the next time. However, if you’re not willing to take that risk, then you should put your energy into effectively governing in the parliament, which you have been given, rather than speculating and whinging about mandates.

“Politics is about a lot more than winning and losing. I think politics at its best is about compromise, shades of grey, and about issues.” – Matt Taibbi

Federal Election 2013: My vote

Tomorrow we will be going to the polls to vote in the Australian Federal Election. We will each have to decide which party we want to throw our allotted 1-vote behind.

I think it is often very difficult to decide which party you want to support, especially when the two major parties seem indistinguishable.  For those who might be interested, I thought I would talk about how I decided where to send my vote.

1. I decided on the issue/s that were most important to me.

For me, the issue is ‘climate-change’. I care a great deal about other issues (e.g. LGBT rights, asylum seekers, welfare). However, I think that the magnitude of the potential hardship and suffering, which could be caused by unmitigated climate-change makes it the most worthy issue to base my vote on.

2. Find out the stances the different parties have on this issue.

a)     House of Representatives: It is most important that you find out the stances of the major parties, as they are more than likely going to be the ones that end up with your vote in the House of Representatives (unless there is a massive upset).

For my issue of climate-change, I decided that the parties were aligned with my views in the following order: The Greens>Labor>Lib/Nat. So this will be the order in which I will preference the parties in the House of Representatives.

b)     Senate: The senate works a bit differently, due to the fact that the seats here are allocated through a proportional system (rather than the ‘winner takes all’ HoR model). This allows many different minor parties to exist and gather support. Given the large number of parties, it is more likely that you will be able to find a party whose views (more or less) match your own, on your key issue/s. However, if (like the majority of Australians) you are going to vote above the line, then the party that you give your vote to (by voting '1' above the line), will decide your preferences for you. Therefore, it is important to investigate how that party has set-up their preferences. Otherwise, you could find your vote ending up with a party who you disagree with.

There are some great sites, which can show you how the different parties have directed their preferences flows (e.g. http://www.belowtheline.org.au).

In my case, I am voting below the line, to ensure that my vote goes exactly where I want it. I am voting for the future party first. In regards to climate-change policy, I think the Future Party has a firm understanding of the science, and a realistic understanding of our options to deal with it. They have proposed: supporting carbon pricing, supporting renewable & nuclear energy production, and exploring the available geo-engineering options to deal with any warming which occurs. Despite preferencing this party first, I am aware that my vote is not likely to stay with them, as a result I ensured that my vote would flow on to the other parties in a manner that reflects my values. I had a look at the default 'Future Party' preference flow and found it was quite different from what I wanted, so it is important not to just assume that a party you agree with on certain issues is going to preference your vote in the way that you would like. So, if you have the time, I think it can be well worth voting below the line to ensure that your vote actually ends up where you want it. You only get the chance to do this once every 3 years, so you may as well wring every drop of democracy out of the process that you can.

So there we go, that is how I have decided where my vote will be going on Saturday. I hope it has been of some help/interest.

“Democracy is being allowed to vote for the candidate you dislike least” – Robert Byrne.