Hey, I'd love to amend the constitution to make the the whole Senate a national electorate, but it's a political non-starter. Tasmania and SA would have fits. That was the price of federation.
Joycemandering: Barnaby’s Senate reform proposal
- Thread starter Messenger
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I think BJ should be careful what he wishes for ....
In VIC we could have regions centered around for example Melbourne, Geelong, Mildura, Ballarat, Bendigo and Gippsland. Given the major cities in those regions will primarily swing between Labor & Liberal there's a good chance of zero National senators in Victoria and a dead heat between the two majors especially if the current quota system is used.
In VIC we could have regions centered around for example Melbourne, Geelong, Mildura, Ballarat, Bendigo and Gippsland. Given the major cities in those regions will primarily swing between Labor & Liberal there's a good chance of zero National senators in Victoria and a dead heat between the two majors especially if the current quota system is used.
Disproportionate representation doesn't result from state-based election of senators. It results from state quotas for senators. The two are separate issues.
The fundamental idea that Joyce is proposing (that senators be elected to represent specific electorates within their state) is IMO a good one. Not only does the ticket system mean most Senators currently lack any real accountability, but changing demographics since Federation and the vastly different interests of metro and non-metro voters make it virtually impossible for one Senator to meaningfully represent the entire state.
Where I think we can all agree he is taking the piss is in the way he wants to gerrymander the sub-state electorates to benefit the Nats. But that is a problem of implementation more than concept.
Problem?
Fair enough.Laughing doesn't usually indicate a problem
Tasmania and SA aren't going to accept fewer senators than the other states either, they'll claim it's unconstitutional.
Agreed, but lower house electorates serve the function of serving local interests already. I suppose multi-member electorates like you see in the ACT or Tassie might be an idea. But personally I'm fine with national proportional representation.
This whole idea is diabolical. It is so bad not even the Libs would accept it. The Libs have had enough of dealing with the Nats in the lower house. They don’t need more of them in the upper house.
See, that just seems horrific to me. The Senate is already full of good-for-nothing party apparatchiks sitting high and safe on their state tickets. A national proportionate vote just creates more of them.
I maintain that's the fault of party members for allowing the tickets to be chosen by party apparatchiks, and voters for refusing to vote below the line. We already have geographic representation in the lower house and I see no need to have a parallel system in the upper house.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,934
- 25,095
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
The whole point of the Senate was for it to be a state's house, and for Senators to be state representatives. I think the issue you have is more with the party system.
Senators are already assigned geographic portfolios within their states. Making them elected by the geographic areas they are supposed to be responsible for is not a major step.
The make-up of states has changed drastically since federation, and it is unrealistic to think that a whole state can be effectively represented by senators who are essentially elected by metro voters.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,934
- 25,095
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
Well of course most will be elected by metro voter because we're a highly urbanised country, but I would expect that regional voters get their say as the metro vote exhausts. And I fail to see what difference the make-up of states makes, as the senators are still voted in via a statewide election. So unless you want the bananabymander, the senators will still reflect the 'new' make-up of the state.
And it's been pointed out many times in this thread that the regions all have their own Member of Parliament anyway, so representing specific regions isn't really in the job description of the Senate. They can still do it on an ad-hoc basis, but there's no need for it to be codified.
