The Senate voting model is broken, REVELATIONS about the rorting of the Senate election system by statistically irrelevant candidates are appalling ("Sly deals make joke of Senate", 9/9). Correcting this situation must be a priority for the new parliament.
Such manipulation of the democratic process cannot be allowed to stand. Effectively, a significant number of voters have been disenfranchised and candidates who should have been elected may well not have been.
W. D. Kavanagh, Macleay Island, Qld
WITH the prospect that the balance of power in the Senate may be held by people who have received a handful of votes, could someone please explain how this could happen in a country that boasts of its democratic traditions? More importantly, could someone suggest how this travesty can be rectified? Even the worst dictatorships in the world have probably enjoyed a greater level of support than the tiny percentage these would-be senators have received.
Robyn Roberts, Woollahra, NSW
THE elephant in the room is not Clive Palmer but the Senate. Designed to protect states' rights, it morphed into a house of review and then a place where bastards were kept honest.
Now it is a threat to the democratic process, the home of special interest groups. When senators can be elected because voters confuse the names of parties or on less that 1 per cent of the vote due to preference deals, the model is broken.
P. J. McLeod, Double Bay, NSW
SENATE voting results have become a farce because the voter is not made aware of the preference deals made by the party of their persuasion. Voting below the line requires knowledge of the policies of the more obscure parties, knowledge not in the possession of most voters. Voting above the line is like a game of Russian roulette.
Such manipulation of the democratic process cannot be allowed to stand. Effectively, a significant number of voters have been disenfranchised and candidates who should have been elected may well not have been.
W. D. Kavanagh, Macleay Island, Qld
WITH the prospect that the balance of power in the Senate may be held by people who have received a handful of votes, could someone please explain how this could happen in a country that boasts of its democratic traditions? More importantly, could someone suggest how this travesty can be rectified? Even the worst dictatorships in the world have probably enjoyed a greater level of support than the tiny percentage these would-be senators have received.
Robyn Roberts, Woollahra, NSW
THE elephant in the room is not Clive Palmer but the Senate. Designed to protect states' rights, it morphed into a house of review and then a place where bastards were kept honest.
Now it is a threat to the democratic process, the home of special interest groups. When senators can be elected because voters confuse the names of parties or on less that 1 per cent of the vote due to preference deals, the model is broken.
P. J. McLeod, Double Bay, NSW
SENATE voting results have become a farce because the voter is not made aware of the preference deals made by the party of their persuasion. Voting below the line requires knowledge of the policies of the more obscure parties, knowledge not in the possession of most voters. Voting above the line is like a game of Russian roulette.
No comments:
Post a Comment