Is our 2 party system just a con?

[octave]

43 minutes ago, Siso said:

So same as the other pollys, they all promise what they can't give

 

I think the problem is that the electorate is infantile. Promises are for kids sitting on Santa's knee. We think of pollies as being bad because they don't do exactly what we personally want.  So I agree that pollies make promises they can't keep, but why?  Perhaps it is because we crave simple answers. I am sure most of us here would think that large corporations should pay more (or any in some cases) tax.  Why don't stupid polies realise that and do this super popular thing?  I guess they are probably aware that if they did some of these corporations would shut up shop and then move elsewhere. I think a solution for this needs to be found, but it is not as simple as many believe  

[facthunter]

Most people regard it as a Plus for Participatory Democracy.. Making a song and dance about this is Puerile. You must live a sad existence. Getting the Best Government possible should be every citizens Aim. and I get back to the essential question. Where ELSE would you Prefer to LIVE.?  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

I am just catching up on this thread, so a looooong post... Because I can talk the leg off a chair.

On 11/03/2026 at 10:04 AM, old man emu said:

Perhaps Jerry, with his daughter just starting Uni, is the only one in our group who might have that opportunity. 

As RandomX said, I am not the only one. It is fair to say my son at 23 is politically engaged, and although not wedded to an ideology, is a little to the right of me (and I try and treat each issue on its merits - I rather than right or left). My som and I do have many thoughtful and deep conversations on may political, socological, and economic issues. Like me, he tends to treat each on its merits (or try to - because our values determine how we treat the merits, I guess). He gets all of his information from social media - mainly Youtube, but is careful to cross reference within that platform. I encourage him to at least go to the offical sources of information. On each issue, I steer him to review the purported facts. Where we disagree, and it is often, sometimes he brings me around to his way of thinking, sometimes I bring him around to my way of thinking, sometimes we agree to respectfully disagree.. But to his credit, he works to inform himself thoroughly and many discussions have ended up with me being thoroughly educated (even on aviation things - that did hurt). 

 

What he tells me of his friends though, is that in reality, it is a mix. There is one that is a reform voter, and one that is Greens. The reality is there are more leaning to the right at the moment, because the new left (Starmer) has failed them big time in what he promised versus is deliveriing.. And i am not talking handouts and an easy life, but a fair crack at it.  That is what is letting the protest parties and votes, such as Brexit it. 

 

Also, immigration is an issue.. but that is another conversation.

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 11/03/2026 at 11:17 PM, facthunter said:

We have a more or Less functioning parliament where the Labor party is women  friendly and have More than 50% in their ranks in the Lower house whose Leader has managed a good relationship with Donald, You could be A LOT WORSE OFF. THINK about it.  Words are cheap. It's fashionable to Beat up on Pollies, but expect them to do everything for you for free.. Nev

I don't understand what th number of women, men, black, white, Muslim, jew, or swahili have to do with anything in terms of quality of government or workforce for that matter. You want the best team.. Tanya Plibersek is in the team, but I get the feeling Albo doesn't like her, so she is probably there because of her factional wars and not being utilised to her full talents (or what seems to be). So, that is a waste of a mministerial appointment.  Claire O'Neil, in what I have seen seems to be completely useless. I could be wrong, of course, but from what I have seen, I wiould prefer someone better. 

 

If the minstry is 100% men or women, as long as they are the best for the job, is the important measure.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Your right to Vote is the Best assurance of your ability to be rid of a despot. Most of the World would love to have what we have. Compulsory voting came in to stop the Bosses from preventing you voting.. (like Trump wants to) Boasting about NOT voting is like Wearing a Jumper with " I'm the Village Idiot"  on it.  Nev

I am not sure about the reasons for compulsory voting,but it being the best assurnce to stop a despot is absolute poppycock, in my opinion, and I have lived under both compulsory and voluntary voting. Australia had the most on the nose government for 13 years and they had, at least up until 2022. The LNP have since dropped further as a party - not government. Albo won power by a single seat because the LNP supporters who could not fathom a Labor govrnment could not bring themselves to vote anyone else. Think about it.. Across Austalia, all it would take is two seats not to flip, and the will of the majority of the people would not have happened and what had become close to the most despotic government in Australia would have remained  In the UK in 2024, remarkably similar circumstances ended up with a Labour landslide. Why? Because the Conservative supporters that couldn't support a Labor government didn't turn up to vote. 

 

At the same time, the loony protest party, Reform got their first seats in the House of Commons - 4 of them on the same primary vote as the Lib Dems got their 15 or so seats. Now, if the LNP voters who couldn't fathom a Labor government turned up to vote - and Pauline had th run she was having now, who do you think they would have voted for? Suddenly, your despotic governent is more likely with compulsory voting. 

 

Of course,the UK is fist past the post v. Aus's preferetnal system, but if you want to guarantee one nation a look in while the LNP is still unelectable, force those LNP voters to vote. What is saving you is preferental voting, not compulsory voting. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, octave said:

Because in life, you are often faced with choices, and there is no perfect solution. If I book a domestic flight, every airline available has had its share of fvckups. What am I to do, not book any of them, or do I rationally evaluate the choices available and choose the best (or least worst one?

 

The thing is that as individuals, we all have things we want and don't want. No party can ever represent every single thing I want so what am I to do?  Should I not vote for anyone or should I vote for the government that most closely aligns with my beliefs?

 

If I took your statement literally, then I would never vote. Would that be a good thing if no one voted?

And some of those choices is to do nothing. And when you have that choice and its valid, why not to do it? And even with your analogy. if they occasionally f up,m but you are likely to get the outcome you want, then you will take them. .that is the same with political partes and anything else for which there is limited choice. But, using your airline analogy, if you had a choice of 10 airlines, and they promise to take you to your destination, but everything tellsyou you are likely to not even get off the ground, and even if you do, you are most likely to end up in a burning wreck or a destination so far away from where you want to be, it is not worth it, will you still book your flight because that's all that is available?

 

If so, that is your choice. My choice would be to not bother.

Edited 11 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[randomx]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

She has  NO one legitimately in the Lower House Where it ALL Happens. If Barnaby runs for the Lower house HE may Miss out. He is guaranteed a Place on the senate ticket that will get him in there. For Integrity on a scale of one to ten I would give him Minus five. He's just Pooped on the party that supported him for ages. What a great example HE sets? Not,  Nev

Agree , Barnaby's always been a wanker .

[Jerry_Atrick]

Also, in politics, when you vote for someone, you are saying I want that someone to be elected. You arenot saying you are the least worst option. You are endorsing someone. Therefore, if there is noone you wish to endorse, you shouldn't be forced to even come to the booth to have your name struck off. It should be the default position.

[randomx]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Most people regard it as a Plus for Participatory Democracy.. Making a song and dance about this is Puerile. You must live a sad existence. Getting the Best Government possible should be every citizens Aim. and I get back to the essential question. Where ELSE would you Prefer to LIVE.?  Nev

Dunno if your talking to me but l never boasted about anything, just sayin. As for village idiot , says who , you , who tfk are you. My older sister doesn't vote either same reasons and she's a professor, l've built and ran my own business 35yrs.

Sad bc l don't vote, oh shyt yeah, lose heaps of sleep.

ps, your actually way way out voted yourself have you seen the numbers from around the world of voting percentages ? Even in the great old US OF A yank land.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by randomx

[octave]

2 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

If so, that is your choice. My choice would be to not bother.

So you don't vote? Have you ever voted? Who did you vote for? (Maybe that question is too personal)

 

I am not trying to tell people how to live their lives. If not voting enhances your well-being, then go for it. For me, action, even if it is ineffective, just feels better than inaction. Complaining without action to me is just whinging.

 

I recently found myself in a situation of spending a whole day with my mother 93 (who lives in an aged care home) in a hospital emergency waiting (9 hours plus). I can see why this happened, and I can see the problems of the system.  For a couple of days, I was seething, angry and anxious.    I then did what I always do (being a man of action). I wrote several letters to several different people/bodies. I am fully aware that none of my well-researched, intellectually rigorous arguments will make the slightest bit of difference. It did, however, help me get over and return to my happy state. 

 

I really hate whingers, and to me the definition of a whinger is someone who believes that constantly restating their beef but doing nothing is somehow noble.   

 

If 90% of the population stopped voting, would politicians change, or would they just campaign to the 10% and save money.

 

Our present government, of course, is far from perfect. If you are waiting for perfection, you will never vote. If I waited for the perfect woman to marry, I would still be single.

 

I don't give a toss whether an individual votes or not, but pretending it is some noble gesture that will be a kick in the nuts is BS.

 

As per my previous post, votes not cast mean very little to a political party; they are too vague. Writing on your ballot "stop logging"  or "out with migrants" or whatever does get back to parties via scrutineers (I know this for a fact) rather than "I am not voting and I am not telling you why

[octave]

Just another thing that makes me feel better is in the case of this guy

 

 

The South Australian Liberal party is standing by an election candidate who said same-sex marriage is not real, homosexuality can open up “demonic realms” and gender transitioning is an “illusion”.

 

I don't want to merely punish (if I lived in his electorate) with 0 vote, I want to vote strategically against him.

 

I always vote strategically and number every square.   

 

For many years, I lived in Eden-Monaro, a so-called bellwether seat. This meant the winner of the seat was always (mostly) from the party that won the government. This seat was sometimes pivotal, so it did really matter.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

1 hour ago, octave said:

I always vote strategically and number every square

 

That's what we're supposed to do, isn't it?  Or is it different in SA?

[octave]

15 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Or is it different in SA?

I am actually in Vic, just used a quick example of a pollie that I would put last.

15 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

That's what we're supposed to do, isn't it?

Yes in the House of Reps. In the Senate, you can vote above the line (for grouped candidates) or number every candidate 

Edited 8 hours ago by octave

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I don't understand what th number of women, men, black, white, Muslim, jew, or swahili have to do with anything in terms of quality of government or workforce for that matter

Hooray!

 

Pity you don't represent the majority.

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I don't understand what th number of women, men, black, white, Muslim, jew, or swahili have to do with anything in terms of quality of government or workforce for that matter. You want the best team.. Tanya Plibersek is in the team, but I get the feeling Albo doesn't like her, so she is probably there because of her factional wars and not being utilised to her full talents (or what seems to be). So, that is a waste of a mministerial appointment.  Claire O'Neil, in what I have seen seems to be completely useless. I could be wrong, of course, but from what I have seen, I wiould prefer someone better. 

 

If the minstry is 100% men or women, as long as they are the best for the job, is the important measure.

 

 

It's important to the comrades and that's why they have a quota system. They love their social engineering.

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, octave said:

So you don't vote? Have you ever voted? Who did you vote for? (Maybe that question is too personal)

Given I have lived in mandatory and optional voting jurisdictions, chances are yes  😉

 

In the UK, I vote regularly.. But not always. I have voted predominantly for the side of the divide that aligns with my values, but have swung.. less chance these days because of the way the parties have moved. I don't need to divulge much more than that unless you really want to know (if you haven't worked it out). Remember, as a youngster I was a member of one of the major parties in Australia; Was the president of my branch, a national conference delegate, and on the public office selection committee for the electorate of my branch. I consider myself pretty well politically engaged.

 

3 hours ago, octave said:

For me, action, even if it is ineffective, just feels better than inaction. Complaining without action to me is just whinging.

The assumption you are making is deciding not to vote is inaction, and not a purposeful action. I agree, a lot of people who don't vote are likely to be disengaged, but a lot also are engaged - have looked at the options and decided none are for them. It does not make it inaction. It is an action to say what on offer is not what they want. I can't see what is wrong with that. I don't accept that it is better to vote for the one that won't serve your interests, but somehow is deserving your endorsement to be elected. If you feel neither of them would be good public servants. Uf you saw a bunch of plumbers to do some long term work and none of them were competent, would you retain them?

 

3 hours ago, octave said:

I really hate whingers, and to me the definition of a whinger is someone who believes that constantly restating their beef but doing nothing is somehow noble. 

I agree.. Deciding not to vote, however, isn't necessarily accompanied by whinging. Nor does it mean that someone doesn't try other ways to achieve outcomes. Or maybe they are just apathetic and don't care and don't whinge. Excpt for the whinge that neither is good.. Then yes, let your parties know they are putting up to you who are unelectable. 

 

3 hours ago, octave said:

If 90% of the population stopped voting, would politicians change, or would they just campaign to the 10% and save money.

I don't know the answer to your question. But the question I feel wrong. If only 10% of people voted, has the public given them a mandate to carry out their manifesto/policies? I would argue no (or at least, with such a low turnout, not without a huge risk to their next election chances). If I were just elected with such a low turnout (assuming an average of around 65% turnout in the UK), I would be very careful what I did in government, lest my time would be vry short. Also, parliamentary governments means that their leadership would be very weak and susceptible to takeover, so they would have to tread very carefullly. 

 

3 hours ago, octave said:

Our present government, of course, is far from perfect. If you are waiting for perfection, you will never vote. If I waited for the perfect woman to marry, I would still be single.

I am not sure where this comes from. There seems to be an assumption that where someone fails to vote because no one is going to doeverything that the viter wants. I can't speak for other people, bujt that has not factored into my decision not to vote. And while you can assume a certain percentage may have that approach, I would suggest that most who don't vote and aren't apathetic would not expect perfection and if there was a candidate that was likely to change things for the better for them, they wouild vote. We have seen this in the UK before with Tony Blair in 1997 that had the largest voter turnout in years, and with the previous election where people felt neither were really appropriate, where the voter turnout was the lowest since the early 1900s in the low 50%. I think this is evidence it is a ppositive action. 

 

3 hours ago, octave said:

I don't give a toss whether an individual votes or not, but pretending it is some noble gesture that will be a kick in the nuts is BS.

Fair enough. I consider that every vote counts, so I take my vote and my decision not to vote equally seriously. The times I have decided not to vote have been considered choices bases on the candidates and parties' offerings at the time. If there are people se disengaged that they don't want to vote, then I don't want them to as they donot consider what they are voting for (some will decide to take interest) and will jujst follow whatever it is or do the donkey vote - as useless as not voting in that situation. And in fact can send the wrong message to someone who gets elected that they have a mandate when they don't. I consier this much more dangerous to democracy than a population of people deciding not to vote no matter their motivations.

 

To use your 10% turnout scenario, there is clearly no mandate with such a turnout in free and fair elections. But if voting is complusory, and 90% didn't want to vote, there are two options: 1 - they spol the vote. Clearly again, no mandate so why bother turning up. Second option is a donkeyed vote. Well, the message could be interpreted as there being a mandate, as they took the time to endorse the first person on the list. That is much more dangerous to democracy to me than not turning up to vote. 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

4 hours ago, octave said:

s per my previous post, votes not cast mean very little to a political party; they are too vague. Writing on your ballot "stop logging"  or "out with migrants" or whatever does get back to parties via scrutineers (I know this for a fact) rather than "I am not voting and I am not telling you why

I can only go by Australia and according to Chat GPT, teh average long term percentage of spoiled or informal votes is 4% in the lower house and 6% in the senate. I would argue that is too statistically small given a 100% poll. Of course, you can write messages on valid ballots as well. 

 

I can only go on my experience as a polling clerk in Kensington, Mlebourne in the 90s - so still a lower income area by and large - with I recall a larger Vietnamese population, but still a strong non-immigrant population. I recall most of the ballots that had more than the numbers marked or were informal were in descending order, drawings (some almost adacemic quality) of human genatalia of both genders, and any written messages were expletive laden expressions of general dissatisfaction with politics, and not constructive or specific issues. So, I am not sure of what statistical value the parties would make of it. I am sure at other polling booths and in the central count, they would have better quality of comments. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[willedoo]

9 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I can only go by Australia and according to Chat GPT, teh average long term percentage of spoiled or informal votes is 4% in the lower house and 6% in the senate. I would argue that is too statistically small given a 100% poll. Of course, you can write messages on valid ballots as well. 

Jerry, I'm a bit confused here. I though if you write on a ballot paper it's marked down as informal. ie: you fill out the ballot correctly then write a message on it = informal vote.

[Jerry_Atrick]

If you can clearrly discern the voter intention (i.e. the numbers are clear and legible) and it would othrwise be valid (minimum numbers next to names, etc), it is a valid vote. Nothing wriong with writing on the top, or bottom or back of the ballot anything.. At least that's how it was when I was a polling clerk. Sometimes a scrutineer would argue with us about whether it was spoiled or not, in which cae the returning officer would review and sometimes separate them out for the central vote counting team to deal with. 

 

That was in Vic but was the same for the federal elections as well.

Edited 7 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

Also I was a casual polling clerk at a polling booth.. All votes are then sent to the electoral office where they are recounted. so with ballots with other markings than the actual voting, they may take a different view on their eligibility. I hasten to add, I wasn't a member of a political party at the time.

Edited 6 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

4 hours ago, octave said:

If I waited for the perfect woman to marry, I would still be single.

I have never been married 😉

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick