The platform once known as Twitter failed the lowest of hurdles this week. Will we do anything about it?

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    We have a few big advantages over you guys. Compulsory voting means any campaign has to be focused on actually getting people to vote for you, instead of just dissuading (or worse—actively using the law to prevent) people who would vote for your opponent to simply not vote.

    Preferential voting for our House of Representatives and proportionalish voting for our Senate means we don’t have the spoiler effect so people can vote for their absolute favourite candidate without hurting their “lesser of two evils” preference between major parties.

    These have huge moderating impacts on our overall political discourse. But honestly, if it weren’t for these factors, I don’t think we’d be too far off you. Our Liberal Party (originally a broad church including classical liberals and conservatives) has been taking over by the most extreme conservatives/reactionaries among them, and the Labor Party is milquetoast centrist at best, with more friendly policies in areas like education and healthcare, but lockstep with the Liberals on “national security” and erosions of civil liberties and privacy. They also don’t have the guts to enact policies you know they believe in when it comes to a progressive tax system—probably most famously, they’re supporting the former Liberal government’s “stage 3 tax cuts”, cutting income tax rates on the highest income brackets. So we’ve got rightward shifts of both our largest parties.

    This is aided in no small part to Australia’s media landscape being so strongly defined by a certain infamous American media mogul. Far more even than his influence on the American market. In my home state of Queensland, every published physical newspaper is Murdoch, and the most popular newspapers in other states are his as well. And of course he has strong ties to the Liberal Party. The only significant competition is what used to be called Fairfax media, which is also Liberal-linked.

    But again, our systems help protect us from the worst of this. At the last federal election we saw a huge surge for the leftist Greens party (going from 1 MP to 4), and the so-called “teal” independents (so-named because they would traditionally have been members of the blue-coloured Liberals, but have left the Liberals behind when it comes to caring for the environment as well as some other issues like women’s rights and corruption) multiplied from 2 incumbents to a total of 8 MPs. Ironically, this may have made the Liberal Party even worse, because the seats won by independents and Greens were previously held by some of the more moderate wing of the Liberal Party. But it does mean our Parliament ends up looking a lot more moderate than otherwise, and it rationalises our political debate somewhat.

    • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Compulsory voting means any campaign has to be focused on actually getting people to vote for you

      I don’t think this is necessarily true, did you miss the massive amounts of negative campaigning that happens every election?

      • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        The fact is in the 2022 US election, voter turn out was as low as 40% in some states and never anywhere even remotely in the same vicinity as Australian elections (which are well over 90% and a lot of the people who didn’t vote had an acceptable reason, such as living in another country without being a citizen there).

        When you have elections being won by very slim margins, which has been the case lately in both countries, that makes a huge difference.

        • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          This changes the effect of negative campaigning (people still show up in Aus vs the US), but the idea is to dissuade people from voting for someone, rather than encourage them to vote for you. This might have a positive effect on votes for the party doing the negative campaigning, but I think it’s a poor definition of convincing someone to vote for you.

      • Mountaineer@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        These are not contradictory at all.
        People have to vote, and its easier to convince someone to NOT vote for the hated enemy, which implicitly gets them to vote for you.

        • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I don’t think this is a useful definition of voting for

          which implicitly gets them to vote for you.

          Seems to only be true if you think of there being only 2 parties, which is why I don’t think the definition is good.

          • Mountaineer@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            You, being aware that there are more choices that Labor vs Liberal, are more educated than the vast majority of my family (and dare I say the community at large), who believe that voting for anyone else is “throwing their vote away”.