@Citizen Tiger said:@Yossarian said:@Citizen Tiger said:Interesting watching the Westminster system of Gov't in action at times, particularly when it trips itself up. Many more have been converted to the school of thought that the preferential system is flawed, the worst case scenario having realised iteself. If there is an outcome, it won't prove to be anything other than untenable. I don't believe either Gov't could be effective where the balance of power is held by those with regional self interest. Time will become an issue and neither party will tolerate endless meetings and negotiations over successive legislative proposals. The thing that's often forgotten here is that Independents are inevitably elected on the strength of their local focus, not Green House Emissions, Indigenous Issues or the BER.
It can only end in another election and the ANU polls are already suggesting a Coalition win by 6-10.
Westminster government is not the same as preferential voting. Britain doesn't have preferential voting…
Do you have a link to this ANU poll? I can't find any details on it.
Yoss, 'Westminster' in this case refers to the style of Government, not the big building by the Thames.
I quote 'The system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature. It is used, or was once used, in the national legislatures and sub national legislatures of most Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth nations upon being granted responsible government, beginning with the first of the Canadian provinces in 1848 and the six Australian colonies between 1855 and 1890'
Preferential voting can be utilised in any system of democracy, but it is a key feature of the Australian political landscape and therefore a feature of our style of the Westminster System.
The poll dropped into my in box and I have deleted it, but was a newsletter from ANU. Will try and track it down.
Yeah I know what Westminster means champ - I think you misinterpreted my post which was in response to the suggestion that preferential voting = Westminster government or is an integral part of it. It is neither. What you are saying is preferential voting is a part of the Australian political system which it is. From there you've gone with Australia is a Westminster democracy, Australia has preferential voting, therefore preferential voting equates to Westminster government in Australia. A variation on the classic "my cat is a dog" argument. It is a false logic.
You are linking items that exist in the same sphere but have no true relationship with each other.Yes you can have a Westminster system using preferential voting but it is not an essential component (i.e. it is not definitional). You can have preferential voting outside of Westminster and you can have Westminster government outside of preferential voting. In fact I'd suggest Australia is one of the very few Westminster systems that actually uses preferential voting.
It is not correct to link the two. The National Party are a key feature of the Australian political system but have stuff all to do with the Westminster system of government. Your quote is correct and actually explains the flaw in your logic. Most political writers would consider NSW a Westminster government yet it only as optional preferential voting. As I said Britain is FPTP.
PS - My apologies if any of this comes across in a negative way towards you - my intention is just to set forward my POV!