Former Liberal Attorney-General George Brandis, writing in the Nine media this week, argues Labor would gain from a larger House (because the population growth would be greatest in the cities where the Liberals are weak), while the Greens would be advantaged by a bigger Senate.
ie. The current system gives disproportionate representation to the Liberals. A larger parliament would be more representative?
6
hitmyspot - 2mon
Doesn't regular redistricting prevent the need for that?
2
Joshi - 2mon
Kind of, think if blue team got 40% of the vote and red team got 60% of the vote. If there were 4 MPs you'd think they'd get 2 each, if you add another seat red team would have 3 and blue team would still only have 2.
Adding seats in the lower house would necessarily mean adding more inner city seats which is to Labor's advantage. Adding seats to the Senate would mean the Greens would likely have proportionally more seats.
The point I was trying to make is that the argument being made by George Brandis essentially boils down to wanting to maintain a less democratic system because it advantages his party.
3
Zagorath - 2mon
IMO we should switch from IRV to MMP, and do it by doubling the House of Representatives, keeping the same number of actual electorates but adding the top-up seats for a proportional end result.
3
Tenderizer - 2mon
I don't think we should give the nutters the balance of power in both the upper and lower house. Just look at New Zealand.
1
Joshi - 2mon
What about New Zealand?
1
Tenderizer - 2mon
After the last election the government needed to form a coalition with libertarian and right-wing populist parties.
1
Joshi - 2mon
I totally agree, that's a much better system but it requires the dreaded referendum
1
Joshi - 2mon
I totally agree, that's a much better system but it requires the dreaded referendum
HalfEarthMedic in australianpolitics
Grattan on Friday: believe it or not, there would be a case for more federal politicians
https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-believe-it-or-not-there-would-be-a-case-for-more-federal-politicians-265857ie. The current system gives disproportionate representation to the Liberals. A larger parliament would be more representative?
Doesn't regular redistricting prevent the need for that?
Kind of, think if blue team got 40% of the vote and red team got 60% of the vote. If there were 4 MPs you'd think they'd get 2 each, if you add another seat red team would have 3 and blue team would still only have 2.
Adding seats in the lower house would necessarily mean adding more inner city seats which is to Labor's advantage. Adding seats to the Senate would mean the Greens would likely have proportionally more seats.
The point I was trying to make is that the argument being made by George Brandis essentially boils down to wanting to maintain a less democratic system because it advantages his party.
IMO we should switch from IRV to MMP, and do it by doubling the House of Representatives, keeping the same number of actual electorates but adding the top-up seats for a proportional end result.
I don't think we should give the nutters the balance of power in both the upper and lower house. Just look at New Zealand.
What about New Zealand?
After the last election the government needed to form a coalition with libertarian and right-wing populist parties.
I totally agree, that's a much better system but it requires the dreaded referendum
I totally agree, that's a much better system but it requires the dreaded referendum