A genuine threat to real democracy in Australia

mrp · Post by **mrp** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:03 am

No responses on the Australian board. My fellow Australians must agree!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 72784.html

Labor MP's radical plan to give children a vote

By PAUL AUSTIN STATE POLITICAL EDITOR
July 27, 2007

Children would be given the vote under a radical pro-family idea being floated by a confidant of Premier Steve Bracks.

Evan Thornley, Mr Bracks' parliamentary secretary for national reform policy, suggests parents should have the right to vote on behalf of their children under 18 - the more children, the more votes.

He sees this as a natural progression in the evolution of our democracy, from the 19th century when only men who owned property could vote, through to all men getting the vote, then women, then the recent lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18.

The goal of moving from "one vote, one value" to "one person, one vote" would be to break down short-term thinking and encourage thinking about cross-generational issues such as global warming, education funding and job creation.

It might also foster greater engagement in the political system by schoolchildren.

"Just imagine the radical change that would occur if parents voted not just on their own behalf but on behalf of their children, what that would bring to democracy, for investing in human capital, for investing in the next generation, for thinking about the environment and the longer-term future of our country," Mr Thornley said.

"It would be a big change - yet hard, I would have thought, for the self-proclaimed 'family values' crowd on the other side of politics to oppose."

"I will bet if it worked as well as I think it might in making us an even greater nation, we would then export that to the world."

Mr Thornley, who has three young children and entered Parliament under Mr Bracks' patronage at last year's state election, is secretary of the left-leaning Australian Fabian Society, chairman of "progressive" new think tank Per Capita and a former member of the Melbourne University council.

The "one person, one vote" idea was received enthusiastically at an Australian Republican Movement conference in Melbourne at the weekend. Mr Thornley said last night: "Families are currently under-represented in our democracy. They pay but don't have a say.

"A family of five or six has no more say in our democracy than a couple of two - yet their needs and potential contribution are greater.

"Electorates with large numbers of families can have up to 30 per cent more people in them than ones that don't. As a consequence, issues of long-term concern to families like early childhood development, education and the environment don't get the priority they deserve in our democracy.

"So, we could consider parents being given the responsibility to cast additional votes on behalf of their kids until the kids turn 18 when they cast their own vote." Mr Thornley said people's lives and responsibilities changed dramatically when they had children.

"This idea would recognise that change and ensure those increased responsibilities are recognised in our democracy," he said. "For example, Australia is currently at the bottom of the OECD in early childhood development investments. This would be likely to change if this idea came to fruition. It would mean that their families would have a say in our society in equivalent proportion to their actual numbers of people."

It would also ensure children's needs were "explicitly considered and have equal weight to everyone else's in our democracy."

max Headroom · Post by **max Headroom** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:51 am

Now you have done it, he quite and his mate.

Victorian Deputy Premier John Thwaites has announced his resignation from politics, in the wake of this morning's shock resignation of leader Steve Bracks.

Mr Bracks told a press conference at Melbourne's Treasury Place he would stand down - not just as Premier but also from politics.

Mr Bracks told reporters: "I have just left a meeting with my cabinet ministers where I informed them that I intend to resign as Premier, as leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, also as the member for Williamstown.

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:55 pm

When i first read it, i thought-what a ridiculous idea!!

But when i read further down, I found myself becoming interested in the concept.
For starters, it is not about 'giving children a vote'. It is about every person in the country counting as one vote,every person carrying weight, but parents voting on behalf of their children. The only trouble I foresee is which parent would have the rights to vote as there is no guarantee both parents vote the same way.
I can see sense in the argument that a family of 6 may have no more voting power than a DINK couple, so the new voting system would be fairer in some ways. When you think about it, laws and policies should reflect the needs of the wider community.
I think it could see a change in the policies that affect families.

The way one newspaper recorded it was that in some electorates at present, there may be almost equal numbers of voters. But in one area a lot of those voters might be singles or part of couples, while in others there might in fact be 3 times as many people actually living in their electorate. Yet because we only count voters, both areas are treated as the same.

There is another way around it I suppose.
Instead of giving parents votes for their children, you could re arrange electoral areas according to as close as possible equal numbers of people living there, regardless of whether those people can vote or not. That might mean didferent numbers of actual voters but equal representation.

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:14 pm

A few years ago, if this system had been in place, I would have had 4 votes to your one vote.

So, what's your problem?
That seems a perfectly sensible state of affairs to me.

I reckon they should hand me over my husband's vote too.

Ugly Betty · Post by **Ugly Betty** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:40 pm

Why not just lower the voting age, or even give them partial votes until they reach adulthood, just as youngsters get training permits before they get drivers' licenses with full privileges?

Many kids do not have the same outlook or values as their parents. Allowing parents to vote on their behalf may not be an accurate reflection of their will or beliefs.

Example: Mom and Dad oppose gay civil unions, the kids do not. Should Mom and Dad get a greater say despite the fact that their children do not share their views?

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:34 pm

It is an interesting concept, isn't it?
The voting age here is 18. I don't really think it could go much lower.

I think the main reason for the concept being touted is so policies on health, education, child care etc would have more input from families. Probably most kids under 14 don't have a lot of views about those things.
Maybe by 16-18, you might find some kids with different political views but as parents pay the bills and children have no legal responsibilites I guess the parents would have to handle the voting too.

I suspect the issue is more about the weight of votes and how should areas be weighted etc

duskie · Post by **duskie** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:47 am

Ugly Betty wrote:Why not just lower the voting age, ?

leave the kids alone.. leave them out of it.. let our children be children… there is enough pressure on our children as it is without having parents, teaches and political parties shoving their own political agenda’s down their throats!!!

and Bracks? well that is a shock… I didn’t like him at all for the first two terms in politics but with his last political budget before the election I thought he and his party had come to fruition and I believe they are doing a good job at the helm… it is sad to see him go in the circumstances that he is leaving under… I totally understand why, many parents will… its hard not to take blame as a parent when your child has gone off the rails…

mrp · Post by **mrp** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:06 am

This is a f**king appalling proposal.

Children cannot enter into contracts and have limited criminal libaility, but we'll let them vote, or give their parents a vote.

The day this happens, I become a Prince of the Realm, and the Government abidcates.

Yes it borders on alliance with those fringe and loony tunes who hate economists (I am), free traders (I am) and bankers etc but this is nothing more than an ill considered attempt to monopolise votes and a voting base just like apartheid. How many votes are gays going to get in this naked grab for power?

You can have as many votes as you like in the lower house if the election of the Senate's votes are based on how much tax you pay.

What about land rights for lesbian whales, gay outlaw bikers and plant/hominid marriages?

If you fu*ks gave a damn about liberty, this wouldn't be a friggen probelm because the Govenrment wouldn't control marriage.

mrp · Post by **mrp** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:12 am

Government licensed liberty. An interesting, if not totalitarian cocnept.

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:16 am

I think it is an interesting proposal as it makes people think.

We take so much for granted. One adult one vote is a concept we have grown up with but that doesn't mean it is set in concrete. There is nothing wrong in lateral thinking.
It is only 150 years ago, as the article in the paper said, that only male property owners were deemed worthy enough to have one vote.
I guess the people then thought that entirely reasonable.

Where would it leave gays? With one voting unit, same as everyone else.
The proposal is saying every person in society is worth one voting unit. With parents being caretakers till the kids reach 18.

I would achieve the same by moving electoral boundaries to reflect the concept, rather than give adults an 'extra vote', but I think it doesn't do any harm to shake the staus quo of ideas.

It has obviously shaken mr pres.

to the core.LOL

andysfootball · Post by **andysfootball** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:16 am

if dole bludgers are forced to vote who do not really give a toss about the society in which they live

then why shouldn't bright 14 year olds intent on making the counntry better be entitled to a vote

mrp · Post by **mrp** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:26 am

How children do you think category one has, who don't care?

Money quote: I was working as an electoral worker in a State election. There is an incumbent Labour Govenrment, and a welfare addled elector asked me which party John Howard (conservative) was from (Our national leader of our Federal Gov obviously). He said, right, I'll vote for the conservatives (state) because John Howard (Federal) upped my (federal) welfare payments.

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

mrp · Post by **mrp** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:27 am

Maybe we should just get rid of compulsory voting then andy?

mrp · Post by **mrp** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:23 am

This system is so ridiculous and open to abuse.

If a girl has three children before the age of 18, she gets four votes for about another 15 years.

Hell in a handbasket.

Would her mother get two votes for her and her child?

This is a sickening reversion back to qualified votes.

An orphan with no parents gets none (even if he is 17) but a girl of 18 with three children gets four votes, three on behalf of her young children.

This s**t is so wrong it is just not funny.

This is sick apartheidist crap that punishes individuals.

WHO, just WHO would want to disenfranchise orphans, celibant ministers of the church, the infetile, the unloved, the prudent, people with deceased children and most gays?

Sick totalitarian twits.

What about vote rigging and branch stacking?

Ugly Betty · Post by **Ugly Betty** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:53 pm

Mrp, frankly, I agree with you. Scary, I know.

But I do believe in the one-person, one-vote standard.

There was a proposal a few years ago here to allow 16 & 17 year olds to cast "non-qualified ballots" in elections as a means to get them interested in civics and prepare them for when they will be of voting age. I thought it an interesting idea in that so many of our younger people just don't participate. It seems a fairly reasonable way to get them focused on the issues and take their citizenship responsibilities more seriously.

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:20 pm

MrP, firstly, this proposal will never get off the ground, it's day has not yet come, so you don't have to worry.
But get prepared, because what it means is the winds of change could be ahead. Maybe 20-100 years ahead and maybe in a different form, but they are blowing.
For a proposal such as the one touted there are several things i think would need to be in place.
Firstly, compulsory voting as we know it would have to be abolished.
That way the people who really do not care and don't know a thing about policies would not bother going out to vote anyway.
When you think about it, places like US have political parties elected on about 50% of the adult vote because so many fail to vote. Is that one person one vote? No, of course not. It is not the democratic majority at all, it is just the main lot of voters, which is a different thing.

Democracy is just an ideal, never a true attainment whichever way we go-compulsory or non compulsory.

Next-what do you think of the other way I think the ideal of one person one voting unit could be accomplished-by re-dividing electoral boundaries to reflect as close as possible equal numbers of citizens in each area rather than equal numbers of registered voters.
In that way, it would remain as one vote per adult but eg an area with 40,000 people in it (20,000 voters, 20,000 kids) would have one elected member, the same as an area with, eg 38,000 voters and only 2,000 kids.
At the moment, the way things are, it would be possible that the second area could get 1 rep, while the first area would need to be expanded to include 80,000 people (40,000 adults, 40,000 kids) before they would qualify for 1 rep.
When you think of it that way, is it fair that the vote of a single person in a singles type area carries twice the weight of an adult vote in a family type area.

StottieCake · Post by **StottieCake** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:25 pm

Why is this on South Shields forum?

Good theme though.

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:40 pm

I think Mr P wants responses to the idea.
Don't worry-he did put it in the aussie forum-3 times!!

but that board is not open to a lot of people and didn't get a lot of response there.

StottieCake · Post by **StottieCake** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:09 am

mrp · Post by **mrp** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:15 am

I declare myself First Secretary of the Walford Free State, just in case this idiotic idea gets support.

The Crown has had a lot of trouble with telling various Free States what to do.

"Mercy can only be afforded by the strong"

Mr P
First Secretary
Government of Walford Free State