![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6){kind=small}
Pretty much everyone agrees that politics at the moment is extremely dull, and there's also general agreement on the causes - the major parties being poll- and focus-group-driven, the media reporting politics as a sporting contest, etc., and this all leading to the major parties being ideologically indistinguishable.
When we view politics as a sporting contest, this is obviously bad - it's not much fun to barrack for a side that is the same as the other side. But from the perspective of government, I don't actually think it's that bad a thing. We might all like a party that closely matches our political beliefs, but a centrist government will mean that voters are less unhappy with the subsequent policies (in a 'least squares' sense) than a government that's closer to one of the wings.
The resultant bit-by-bit reform that we get does not look obviously worse to me in the long-term than always having ideological coherence in government, but the ideology alternating every couple of terms. I am open to persuasion on that though.
July 30 2010, 11:16:48 UTC 1 year ago
I put it to you that the more people feel the way I do, the less robust democracy is in Australia.
Also, the status quo is sort of alright, but not great, and it would be possible to hasten us along this road of 'bit-by-bit reform' with some actual leadership. A good thing, assuming you like where the country is headed, which I do.
July 30 2010, 11:38:12 UTC 1 year ago
it would be possible to hasten us along this road of 'bit-by-bit reform' with some actual leadership.
The last government did some IR reform, but that was quickly overturned when Rudd won the election.
Obviously some at-the-time partisan reforms would last longer than one term. Perhaps the average pace would be faster than what we're currently looking at. I don't know.
July 30 2010, 11:43:46 UTC 1 year ago
OK, so we're half way along the road to serfdom, instead of being at the start.
The last government did some IR reform, but that was quickly overturned when Rudd won the election.
You make it sound like Rudd was wholly responsible for this when he wasn't. The laws in question were very unpopular and Labor used its mandate to overturn them.
Obviously some at-the-time partisan reforms would last longer than one term.
I agree with this, but would replace 'some' with 'all but the most unpopular'.
July 30 2010, 11:48:30 UTC 1 year ago
July 30 2010, 11:49:49 UTC 1 year ago
July 31 2010, 05:36:29 UTC 1 year ago
Also, surely even you can appreciate the latest XKCD.
July 31 2010, 07:10:38 UTC 1 year ago
I don't know how much that matters. We're all being listened to, by the various polling agencies and through the parties' focus groups. It'd certainly be more interesting if one party took the risk of adopting principled positions and then arguing them, but I don't know how often such a party would win when the other side is targeting the median voter.
If there is general discontent amongst the populace, beyond the general cynicism about politics that I've heard as long as I can remember, then we'll see it in the form of protest votes. The Greens polled just under 8% last time; this time I think they'll get 10-12%, they're favourites to get one lower house seat, and they'll almost certainly end up with the balance of power in the Senate.
Of course, anyone on the economically liberal side of the spectrum has only micro-parties to protest with, but basically there is a mechanism to show the major parties that they're not good enough, if that many voters really feel that way.
Anonymous
August 2 2010, 03:48:47 UTC 1 year ago
http://myblogisanotherblog.blogspot.com/2
~Fitz
Anonymous
August 3 2010, 23:37:50 UTC 1 year ago
Also, I think to a large extent the major parties lead public debate. I don't think they should, but that seems to be the way the media works. Anything more extreme than labor or liberal is deemed "fringe" and not as seriously discussed. A narrowing of the divide leads to a narrowing of ideas.
Sam
Anonymous
August 3 2010, 23:52:20 UTC 1 year ago
Sam
August 4 2010, 00:03:59 UTC 1 year ago
Anonymous
August 4 2010, 03:50:08 UTC 1 year ago
Your response, there, confuses me somewhat. If your position is that poll/focus-group consensus is the best, or even a good way to test and come up with good policy decisions and to run a country, it was pretty much untenable from the outset anyway.....
I'd assumed you thought it was good on purely democratic grounds (that policy decisions come to represent the least-squares optimally preferred decisions) in which case Sam's argument was kind of irrelevant (bad decision, poll-preferred choice - democratic win!).
~Fitz
August 4 2010, 03:59:44 UTC 1 year ago
- the major parties doing what they do now,
- the major parties shaking hands and promising to move away from the centre and not creep back to it in the future.
Does the second choice give better policy outcomes in the long run?
Anonymous
August 4 2010, 06:19:44 UTC 1 year ago
.... But this is all pretty much why a system that rigidly enforces a strictly 2-party is bad. You run the risk, in as much as both must realise it in their mutual interests to maintain a two party system, that in reality you creep closer and closer to being in effect a one party system (I'm reminded of the manner in which Steve Fielding found himself in the senate) - more so when times see their ideological animosities cooling. And once you get there, it's hard to get out.
Which, along with some mutual acceptance of what I'd call particularly stupid and evil policy from both major parties, is why I'll be trying to vote for an option C - put (now) small parties more on the map. Hopefully force electoral change some time down the road.
~Fitz
Anonymous
August 4 2010, 00:53:08 UTC 1 year ago
Dave
Anonymous
August 4 2010, 00:53:52 UTC 1 year ago
August 4 2010, 01:11:14 UTC 1 year ago
On a tangential note, after posting this I did wonder why on earth we'd want to square the differences between the government/party and each individual voter, since this measure gives undue weight to the extremes on both sides. But it happens that a centrist government minimises 'least absolute deviations' as well as least squares (in both cases, assuming a uniform distribution of political values; I have no idea what the actual distribution looks like - uniform, normally distributed about the centre, some sort of bi-modal distribution all look like plausible guesses).
Anonymous
August 4 2010, 01:18:16 UTC 1 year ago
Sam