What continues to amaze me (and it really shouldn't), is the narrow-minded view that the Australian voting public takes in deciding their vote.
The majority in our community continue to perpetuate the fallacy that there are only two parties to endorse. That only the Liberals or the ALP can form government.
This is a blatant untruth that relies on the misconception that voting for a minor party is a wasted vote.
As can be seen across the world, the two-party system is crumbling. Alternative parties are making a stand. We can see it especially in Europe with the Greens. In the UK the Liberal Democrats may soon overtake the Tories as the second major party.
Of course, here in Australia, as long as the naive and ignorant majority maintain the two-party lie through apathy and voting like sheep, our community will never truly benefit.
If you can dare to imagine what 1 million or so GLBTIQ voters could achieve if they worked together in supporting the Democrats or Greens (or even a new pink party) then you might begin to understand what it takes to effect real political change.
As long as we continue to believe that it is a choice only between the Liberals and the ALP, we continue to shoot ourselves in the feet.
"Change will only occur when the pain of change is less than the pain of remaining the same."
Obviously the pain isn't great enough for most ... at least not just yet. Bring on more pain, please! It is our only hope.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Unfortunately, that's true. The libs push the line that a Green vote is a wasted vote. (or democrat). The idea being that if you vote minor, your vote will be lost. This is blatantly false, because they'll just count your second preference instead. Unfortunately, most people just don't understand the mechanics of our voting system, and don't care to take part. Life is essentially good enough for them - they can do more to improve their life by, say, taking night classes than by trying to effect political change. Or at least, that's the perception. But let's just assume the libs aren't entirely lying. Let's assume every vote for Green (say) is at Labor's expense. This is how the fear is propagated - that your are voting at the expense of a more realistic option.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, if the Green candidate doesn't get it, your preference goes to labor anyway. Your vote does its job. Secondly, if the Green candidate does get in, all that means is that your choices will be more accurately reflected. Even if Labour has fewer seats, your Green candidate's voting power will combine with that of Labour's on those issues where they agree - you are not actually reducing the power of your vote.
Voting minor/major is a Good Option, especially if you believe in the policies of that minor party. Even when all the votes for said minor candidate come exclusively from (say) Labour, you don't really weaken the power of your opinion in Parliament.
Yes, I agree with you - in principle. But remember also that if the handful of Democrats in Florida four years ago who voted for Nader (less than a thousand?) had instead voted for Gore, the U.S. would not have had Bush for the last four years, and the world would most likely be a much friendlier and safer place in which to live.
ReplyDeleteIt's problematic. I understand that if you don't take a leap at some point change will not take place; but I'm no longer so sure that if things get worse, society will move to correct it. In a society led by honest people, that would be true. However, it is also true that dishonesty may triumph over the best interest of a people.
What also needs to be recognised, greater than the handful of Nader votes, are the apalling mechanisms (anti-democratic, ambiguous and unsecure) that failed to accurately record voter intentions in Florida.
ReplyDeleteHad the many thousands of votes that were discarded been accurately counted it is likely that the USA would have seen Gore as President. Nader's support base was inconsequential.