The Australian Federal Election

[AFM]

What a total **** up we are still wasting for an outcome and looks like a hung Parliament where no one wins

 

[joG]

What a total **** up we are still wasting for an outcome and looks like a hung Parliament where no one wins

Hung? You mean exactly the same number on two sides?

 

[Serenity]

What a total **** up we are still wasting for an outcome and looks like a hung Parliament where no one wins

Whilst Senator Hanson will be returning to Canberra.

"Please explain" Ugh. What a mess.

 

[AFM]

Hung? You mean exactly the same number on two sides?

Yes hung means equal on both sides

 

[joG]

Yes hung means equal on both sides

Does it mean an identical number of delegates in parliament? That sounds like a very improbable result and quite exceptional.

 

[AFM]

Whilst Senator Hanson will be returning to Canberra.

"Please explain" Ugh. What a mess.

Pauline Hanson is in the Senate not the lower house of Rep's, and the "please explain" was twenty years ago when a reporter asked Pauline what Xenophobia means and at the time I would say the majority of Australians wouldn't have known what Xenophobia meant and is why she asked to please explain, the reported was trying to be smart but it came back to bite her on the bum and she looked like the fool.

 

[HonestJoe]

Does it mean an identical number of delegates in parliament? That sounds like a very improbable result and quite exceptional.

It’s a little more complex with multiple parties. To form an effective government, a party (or coalition) needs an overall majority (and realistically, a little more). If no single party has a majority they can either try to agree a coalition with one or more other parties to get up to an overall majority (though this generally involves compromises) or try to form a minority government (which is possible but obviously makes it more difficult to pass legislation since the other parties can work together to block it).

 

[joG]

It’s a little more complex with multiple parties. To form an effective government, a party (or coalition) needs an overall majority (and realistically, a little more). If no single party has a majority they can either try to agree a coalition with one or more other parties to get up to an overall majority (though this generally involves compromises) or try to form a minority government (which is possible but obviously makes it more difficult to pass legislation since the other parties can work together to block it).

Okay. Thank you. It is about the same problem as in most European countries. It is a general weakness of parliamentary democracy vs presidential forms.

 

[HonestJoe]

Okay. Thank you. It is about the same problem as in most European countries. It is a general weakness of parliamentary democracy vs presidential forms.

I’d say “difference” rather than “weakness”. Presidential systems have similar issues in different ways, such as where there are major political difference between a President and government, leading to either stagnation or legislation being forced through with no real oversight.

I think this is a wider problem to be honest – as long as elected politicians seek to represent only on political viewpoint rather than the will of the population as a whole, there will always be direct conflict and distinct winners and losers. I’m not sure if there is a solution to this but I do know that just shifting the job titles around isn’t it.

 

[AFM]

Does it mean an identical number of delegates in parliament? That sounds like a very improbable result and quite exceptional.

There are 150 members in the lower house of Reps we have two major parties and a number of independents, it looks like the two major parties will have equal number of members, and each major party will have to bargain with the independents to gain over 76 to form government

 

[joG]

I’d say “difference” rather than “weakness”. Presidential systems have similar issues in different ways, such as where there are major political difference between a President and government, leading to either stagnation or legislation being forced through with no real oversight.

I think this is a wider problem to be honest – as long as elected politicians seek to represent only on political viewpoint rather than the will of the population as a whole, there will always be direct conflict and distinct winners and losers. I’m not sure if there is a solution to this but I do know that just shifting the job titles around isn’t it.

I understand the argument quite well, but have never been able to befriend it. If the question of political systems, the conditions under which democracy it the best form of government, why it is and how the democracy should be structured, "Calculus of Consent" by Tullock and Bucanan is an excellent introduction.

 

[HonestJoe]

I understand the argument quite well, but have never been able to befriend it. If the question of political systems, the conditions under which democracy it the best form of government, why it is and how the democracy should be structured, "Calculus of Consent" by Tullock and Bucanan is an excellent introduction.

While I’m sure the political scientists could make all sorts of technical arguments about what kind of political system should work best, in practice I don’t think these systematic details actually make all that much practical difference. It’s ultimately the people involved who determine whether the political process and governmental structures work or not – good people will generally make things work regardless while bad people will create a disaster out of any system.

After all, isn’t it commonly said that the best system in theory would be the truly benevolent dictator? We just know that nobody would ever be up to that job.

 

[joG]

While I’m sure the political scientists could make all sorts of technical arguments about what kind of political system should work best, in practice I don’t think these systematic details actually make all that much practical difference. It’s ultimately the people involved who determine whether the political process and governmental structures work or not – good people will generally make things work regardless while bad people will create a disaster out of any system.

After all, isn’t it commonly said that the best system in theory would be the truly benevolent dictator? We just know that nobody would ever be up to that job.

I don't know about making no practical difference. My experience in companies and politics has always been that the structure an organization makes a huge difference in outcomes of internal decision making processes.

The benevolent dictator is fine, if he is all knowing. If he is not, the democratic process will tend to have an informational advantage.

 

[AFM]

We have a winner by one or two seats thank God, but the Senate is a jumble of independents where nothing will get passed, gee it reminds me of America