Who cares how people voted asks Simon Corbell. [With Poll]

So JS will contest the next election then bail out if labor dont win…Brumby style.

breda said :

So, why do they have those pesky by-elections in the House of Reps?

I agree that having by-elections would be a better idea as the will of the electorate changes over time. If we’re not going to have by-elections, though, then I don’t see that having a new member appointed from the same party as the retiring member doesn’t represent the will of the voters at the time the original election was held. As I said,people generally vote for parties rather than for candidates.

Why bother having elections at all when a party machine can just bring in, NSW Labor style, an unelected MLA with no mandate for representing anyone other than party interests.

I wonder if the Greens will support this (like they support almost everything else Labor) or actually take a stand for democracy.

How about if a member retires mid-term their seat remains vacant until the next election? Replacements only allowed in limited set of circumstances, eg death.

Sounds like a crap idea to me.

Whatever Simon wants, I’ll have the opposite thanks. ACT’s Labor one-party state is bad enough already.

“Thus maintaining party representation also represents the will of the voters.”

So, why do they have those pesky by-elections in the House of Reps? The reason there is because the Government is formed in that House, so it is not owned by parties, but by individual members. Members can choose to leave their party or cross the floor and (in theory) bring down the Government.

Bringing in this provision in the ACT, which is unicameral, further reduces the power of voters. Even in Queensland, which is unicameral, they have by-elections if a member resigns.

If anyone wants to see how measures like what is being proposed can pervert democracy, look at what is happening with the NSW Upper House. People who have just been re-elected (but not even declared winners yet) are already telegraphing their plans to resign, now that their pensions are secure. Jockeying is underway to get others – like Steve Whan – into the vacant spots. So far two, perhaps three, seats are up for grabs in this way. While this is unsavoury in an Upper House, at least those in the NSW Legislative Assembly – where the Government is formed – are not allowed to engage in post electoral seat swapping.

It is easy to see the appeal of this approach for party machines, but it is a backward step for democracy. Since we are stuck with recounts under our system, whoever gets the next quota should win, irrespective of party affiliations.

alaninoz said :

I don’t see the two possibilities in the poll as mutually exclusive. Most people vote for parties rather than for the candidates – shouldn’t be that way, but given the nature of our politics it is. Thus maintaining party representation also represents the will of the voters.

You see what you’ve done here is stumble across a RiotACT poll.

I don’t see the two possibilities in the poll as mutually exclusive. Most people vote for parties rather than for the candidates – shouldn’t be that way, but given the nature of our politics it is. Thus maintaining party representation also represents the will of the voters.

Ooh a double negative