Legislative Assembly increases to 25 members from the 2016 election

davo101 said :

HenryBG said :

Health should be run federally, considering what a poor job the States & Territories have done with it.

LOL. You think the Feds would do any better. The problem with health is that it’s a bottomless pit for money and we only have a couple of ways of rationing: by cost (doesn’t work with socialised systems) or by limiting supply (ie: waiting lists). Having the states or the Commonwealth running it doesn’t change the problem.

HenryBG said :

Ditto with education, policing and the courts.

Not entirely sure you know what the word federation means.

If the Federalism Review gets anywhere, it’s surely more likely that some responsibilities will shift from the federal level to the States and Territories – which might help to keep a few more ACT Ministers busy.

HiddenDragon said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Noticed that the Greens Party have cried foul cos they need 16% for a quota instead of the 12% Rattenbury got! Diddums!

Let’s give the minor parties a fair go, cos they are more responsible than the majors. check out Ricky Muir, the Palmer Party, Pauline Hanson etc.

Pollies who get in and exercise the balance of power with such a miniscule vote will always cry foul. But do they express the will of a majority or even close to it? Nah!

I can’t imagine what they’re worried about – with reports of polling showing majority support for the trams, Shane will surely be re-elected by acclamation and pick up a spare quota, or two, along the way……

Tasmania has 5 electorates of 5 and the previous gov was 11 labour, 10 Libs and 4 greens. Generally if enough people vote for a 3 party in a 5 member electorate they will get the seat. The issue is they generally don’t have the profile and people still feel they may as well vote for a major party cause that is where their vote will go. If people are responsible and know where there vote goes by number below the line the 5th person will rarely be a major party.

Also a single 25 member electorate would result in a ridiculously large ballot paper. Then again why we have ballot papers still is beyond me! If banks can look after my money then i trust that an electronic voting system can look after my vote.

HenryBG said :

Health should be run federally, considering what a poor job the States & Territories have done with it.

LOL. You think the Feds would do any better. The problem with health is that it’s a bottomless pit for money and we only have a couple of ways of rationing: by cost (doesn’t work with socialised systems) or by limiting supply (ie: waiting lists). Having the states or the Commonwealth running it doesn’t change the problem.

HenryBG said :

Ditto with education, policing and the courts.

Not entirely sure you know what the word federation means.

miz said :

Housebound, exactly. How they didn’t think of going back a step and rethinking the wasteful structure itself is beyond me, but it seems they are more interested in self-interest than what would serve the ACT best. It is obvious that separating State and federal responsibilities would provide better admin AND value for money, just as easily (thru an enactment), but hey, let’s have more snouts instead.

We simply do not need our own little Westminster-style system, complete with political shenanigans and million$ wasted on staffers/advisors/policy wonks/etc…
We absolutely do not need Human Rights Commissioners and all this other wasteful, pointless bumpf that is entirely unrelated to the running of Canberra.
We need water & electricity, garbage collected, and roads maintained.
Health should be run federally, considering what a poor job the States & Territories have done with it. Ditto with education, policing and the courts.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Pollies who get in and exercise the balance of power with such a miniscule vote will always cry foul. But do they express the will of a majority or even close to it? Nah!

I think you have a problem with mathematics.

If the sole Green in the assembly teams up with the 8 ALPers, they can together vote in legislation they agree with with their collective majority of 9/17.
The Green has cast but one vote, representing his proportion of the electorate.
The ALPers have cast their 8 votes.

Why should the Green, with just one vote, be expected to “represent the majority”?

Why is it that people who prefer being small cogs in big party machines feel so threatened by people who have so much less power within the democratic process than they do?

Housebound, exactly. How they didn’t think of going back a step and rethinking the wasteful structure itself is beyond me, but it seems they are more interested in self-interest than what would serve the ACT best. It is obvious that separating State and federal responsibilities would provide better admin AND value for money, just as easily (thru an enactment), but hey, let’s have more snouts instead.

If 10%, 20%, etc vote for a particular person or party they should have 10%, 20%, etc members of the elected representatives. But they won’t under the five electorates planned; they will in a sense be disenfranchised; which is exactly as the two major parties plan. The fairest representation for a small place like the ACT is one electorate. But this doesn’t please the two largest parties. So for them it’s what suits them the best and damn the voters.
Housebound said they are thinking for the first time voting informally. I know how they feel, as I feel the same. If I thought enough people would do that and send a message I would do the same, also for the first time ever. Instead I will likely put the major parties last. Unfortunately I don’t think enough other people will care enough to do the same.

For the first time in my life, I’m seriously considering voting informal. The usual protest vote – putting a minor party or independent first – won’t work because my vote would end up with one of Lab, Lib, Green. Labor are an appalling government, Greens are Labor stooges, and I don’t want to reward the Libs (or the other two) for their complicity in this move to line the pockets of more politicians.

rommeldog56 said :

Isn’t this just a cynical ploy by both major parties to reduce the likelihood of a minor party holding the balance of power ? At ACT Taxpayer/Ratepayer expense of course !!

This will not mean better Government nor better Gov’t decision making.

Just more ACT Gov’t Ministers/MLAs to push the party political line and push even more spin onto the electorate.

Politicians are like a virus, they replicate and spread. They become resistant – to public opinion. Particularly if they are ACT politicians.

Yet another example of over governance and snouts in the trough.

Correct.

Isn’t this just a cynical ploy by both major parties to reduce the likelihood of a minor party holding the balance of power ? At ACT Taxpayer/Ratepayer expense of course !!

This will not mean better Government nor better Gov’t decision making. Just more ACT Gov’t Ministers/MLAs to push the party political line and push even more spin onto the electorate.

Politicians are like a virus, they replicate and spread. They become resistant – to public opinion. Particularly if they are ACT politicians.

Yet another example of over governance and snouts in the trough.