There will always be only 2 relevant sides in politics.
If there were 3 or more, then it means that one sides vote is split, and so will not get a majority.
Unless of course you have some wacky proportional representation system.
If there were 3 or more, then it means that one sides vote is split, and so will not get a majority.
Unless of course you have some wacky proportional representation system.
Though this election is going to be a landslide for the Libs, and split votes aren't going to have much impact.
The Senate doesn't form the government and cannot originate supply bills, but otherwise has coequal legislative powers. It is elected on a proportional basis.
The system works well because a government can normally form quickly and govern stably, but in order to pass legislation it must give consideration to minority parties in the Senate. You get an Executive that can execute but which must nevertheless be prepared to compromise.
I have no problems with the senate. I vote for minority parties (Sex Party last election and this one) because I want protection from the government when required.
The fall of the Democrat vote mirrors the rise of the Greens vote, and the Greens are way more left leaning than the Democrats ever were.
I think their demise had more to do with internal infighting and the Andrew Bartlett drunk in the senate debacle.
But yes, I miss them too - they were basically a sensible party who wouldn't do stupid things.
Zagging left cost them the votes they got from Liberal voters.
And that was that.
Doesn't the fact we had greens and independents win lower-house seats prove that there are other options beside the 2 major parties?
Doesn't the current minority government - along with numerous examples of senates where the balance of power wasn't held by the major parties - prove that these parties can have significant influence?
The libs will probably win the lower house easily (although I suspect the Greens will hold Melbourne and Wilkie will hold in Tasmania). But I think the senate will be interesting.
If there were 100 seats and 50 went to the libs, but labor and the greens split 30-20, the libs are (most likely) going to form government even though the people voting greens would prefer a labor government.
They get their local representative, but ultimately it means nothing, because the government that forms is on the political opposite of the spectrum. As pointed out in a sister comment though, this has only happened twice in our history, so I'm probably making a bigger deal than is appropriate.
Agree that the senate is going to be interesting though.
But it's worth noting that the conservative side of politics in Australia has had this problem for a while, and has a perfectly workable solution.
The Liberal/National coalition has often held power, and yet Liberals & Nationals run against each other in elections.
There are similar examples in other countries too.
Coalitions are interesting because once the minor party has a role in government their views cannot be ignored so easily.
The agreement that no minority government (by both the libs and labor) would be formed this election cycle could only of helped the liberals - not that they needed it.
There is a very strong anti-Greens sentiment in places and Labor could not risk being entirely tarred with that brush.
So yes, we have historically had "3rd" parties quite often, from the Australian Democrats in the 90's through to the Australian Greens now.