Two Party Preferred System in Australian Politics

The role of the minor parties within the Australian political system can be as their title suggests, quite minor. On the other hand, a minor party can influence the political proceedings of this country in more ways than one. Minor parties can highlight socio-economic problems that quite often fly under the radar of the larger political parties, or simply can broaden electoral debate. Often spawning from a social, or in the case of the Greens, an environmental movement, minor parties tend to only last through one election, due to a lack of support and relevance in the mainstream social fabric. The minor parties can become crucial players come election time, due to Australia’s law of Compulsory preferential voting. Jaensch (1983, p.21)

Parliament of Australia (2012) has claimed that it’s “Establishing a funding scheme that ensures fairness and openness requires a legislative system that promotes an equitable distribution of resources among political parties and candidates and the timely disclosure of political donations and electoral expenditure”.

Voting in many countries is held in different ways. In The United States of America, voting is voluntary while the Australian citizen has to vote, it is compulsory. When an Australian citizen does not vote they receive a fine. Compulsory voting has now become a large political issue for many countries. Great Britain has seen a dramatic decline in the number of people voting in the last 15 years (Singh, 2014) and compulsory voting has become a large political and social debate. However, as with any political change, there are strengths and weaknesses. The Australian system is an excellent one to analyse as the question has to be asked when introducing compulsory voting what are the long term democratic, economic and social issues? Four key points can be outlined to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the Australian compulsory voting system. The first, compulsory voting provides a clear and accurate representation of an entire electorate. Additionally, this system may influence an increase in support for the leftist policy in a current democratic institution. Another key issue to consider is, does an active and informed citizen have a moral duty and obligation to vote to protect and further society? Key constitutional changes brought about by referendums can prove that compulsory voting is essential and needed in society for every vote to count. Lastly, compulsory voting when being a secret ballot can turn into a more compulsory “turn up” for many citizens as they can

"Choosing Sides: The Rise of Party Politics." Choosing Sides: The Rise of Politics. Web. 21 July

The American two-party system is the result of the way elections are structured in the United States. Representatives in the Congress and in state legislatures are elected to in single-member districts where the individual with the most votes wins. Seeing that only one party 's candidate can win in each district, there is a strong motivation for political candidates to organize themselves into two competing parties. By doing so, party members and candidates maximize their chances of winning elections. In some countries where there are multi-member districts, parties that win smaller percentages of the vote can often win legislative representation. Consequently, in such systems, there is an incentive to form smaller third parties. Other features of the American system of elections, such as campaign finance rules, the Electoral College, and rules giving party candidates ballot access further reinforce the two-party system in the United States. While third parties rarely win major elections, and never the presidency, they have been successful in changing the outcome of elections by withdrawing political support away from one of the two major party candidates. Whatever American system contains to encourage a two party system typically discourages the emergence of third parties. Ever since third parties have emerged in American political history, their successes have been short-lived. Most third parties try to build their support to become like one of the dominant parties, just

It could be argued, however, that the two party system which was once in place is declining, meaning more parties have a realistic chance to achieve role as government. In the last thirty years the support for the Conservative and Labour parties has been gradually decreasing, leaving them with only 67% of the vote at the 2005 general election, which was the smallest percentage they’d gained since 1918. This is an example of partisan dealignment because the working class started to transfer their party support to Conservative instead of Labour. The Liberal Democrats support was significantly increasing, leaving them with 22% of the vote in the 2005 election as well as 62 seats. Their seat numbers had been increasing since 1974 when they only had 14 seats in parliament, suggesting a change in the dominance of only two parties. Today, the Liberal Democrats, who haven’t been considered a main party since, are currently the weaker part of a coalition government, with Labour in opposition. This shows a clear end to the two party system, with three parties in significant places of power.

After all, a central aspect of the proportional representation argument is that the government should be formatted in a manner that allows for the fair representation of the political opinion of Canadians. However, Kam points out how legislation is passed in an effort to represent the will of the majority of Canadians. But, he also argues that there is no such thing as a true majority, as there is no single policy that voters prefer to all others. In turn, he claims that “manufactured majorities” created as a result of the SMP system are not necessarily a bad thing, as they give parliament the stability needed to pass legislation. In comparison, he points out how the MMP system would give power to a number of smaller parties, and that these parties would impair parliament’s ability to pass policy.

Rawson’s book titled Labor in Vain? (1966) lists reasons for the decline in Labor’s first preferential votes, particularly up until the 1960s. By doing so, Rawson constructs the foundations for the beginning of the decline in chapter one, magnifying the core reasons to be the parties unneeded media drama, their lack of respect for leadership, inter-war policies, the 1945 party split, and the decline of trade union power through the alterations in Australian living standards. Rawson draws on interviews with Labor party members to construct his thesis as to why Labor is in Vain, enhancing it through the comparison of both Labor and Liberal policies. Rawson’s book is crucial for understanding why support began to decline during the early and mid-twentieth century, hence assisting with the question as it also provides answers as to what the Party itself can do about the issue, as it points out strengths of the Liberal party which assist in their success.

Since the writing of the United States Constitution, the American government has been structured in a way that only truly allows for two parties. Of course there are numerous other smaller parties, however, the key is that these parties are smaller. The most successful way to become elected to a position in the American governmental structure is to have the backing of the Democratic or Republican Party. Over the two-hundred-year history of the United States the parties have changed names and fundamentally altered their core believes. Today, the distinction has become quite clear as the rise of polarization forces a clear, concise difference between the two parties. The Democrats must uphold the liberal ideals while the Republican Party carters to those of a conservative

Prime Minister Christie is confronted with the difficulty of leading a large majority in parliament. There's absolutely no guarantee of harmony in the corridors of power and politics. There's no evidence to suggest that the governing party is deeply divided, we bear witness to the political consequences of adding a new element of uncertainty to the mix. Any parliamentarian will tell you that YOUR worst day in government is a hundred times better than your best day in opposition. The Progressive Liberal Party are now learning that your worst day with a majority is about a thousand times better than your best with a minority. Political parties cannot ignore the influence of back-benches nor can they deny their significance. Where there lacks

The 1996 provincial election of British Columbia, produced what was considered to be a “wrong-winner” scenario, in which the party that received a majority of the votes received significantly less than a majority of the seats available for representation. The falsely represented party and its supporters were understandably furious. As a result, many pushed for electoral reform to prevent a similar outcome in future elections. Campaigns, such as The Free Your Vote, aimed towards ensuring more accurate elections, but failed to produce any real change was made. Then in the 2001 election, the exact opposite happened; the party that had received a majority of the votes but had poor representation in the 1996 election had now received less than a majority of the votes but received a majority of the seats. Yet again, a “wrong-winner” had been named. The fundamental idea that a party and the number of

In light of these troubling statistics, Canada must implement sweeping electoral reform to reintroduce balance and fairness into politics, and reinject democracy into Canadian society. This paper will argue that the current First Past the Post, or FPTP, system is inherently flawed, and that Mixed-Member Proportional Representation, or MMP, will reinject democracy into Canada’s political system. First, I will argue that MMP will will bring the aspects of democracy that have been neglected and lost under the current system; second, it will improve discourse and introduce more political diversity into parliament; and finally, the influx of minority and coalition governments will encourage collaboration and accountability within all parties.

While gearing up for the 2016 election, it was extremely clear that this election was going to be a turning point in American politics. Ever since the 2016 Presidential candidates started campaigning over a year ago, one thing is becoming very clear: America’s two-party political system is in disarray. “Party systems in the United States are inherently unstable. Because it is a two-party system, the party that wins is the party that builds the biggest coalition. But the bigger the coalition, the more unstable it is” (Drutman). The struggle is finding solutions to fix it. It definitely did not help that businessman Donald Trump became president. Currently, there are two main parties in the United States federal system: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. There are also many third party alternatives that are struggling to change the way we look at politics.

The ALP has taken a back seat to accommodating new social movements as it seeks to take whatever measures necessary to achieving government. In response, the Greens have used social movements as a platform for the party’s campaigning. The dynamics of election campaigning has evolved in Australia and has seen the major parties produce less emphasis on traditional ideology (Katz and Mair 2009:762) in their attempts to winning elections by targeting swing electorates. Therefore, the Greens have emerged as a party of principle in the face of blurring distinctions between the two major parties who seek to freeze out the minor parties and maintain their electoral dominance. Minor parties have fallen victim to elements of Cartelization in Australian politics which aims to prevent any challenges to the dominance of the two major parties. Furthermore, the Greens have garnered support through the belief that the Liberals as well as the ALP have become “indifferent to the desires of ordinary citizens” as policies become part of ‘the state than they are policies of any particular party or coalition’ (Katz and Mair 2009:759). The Cartelization of Australian Politics justifies how divisions within the ALP have played a significant role in the origins of the Greens as voters seek to challenge the dominant two-party

The Australian Federal Election in 2013 was a colossal victory for the conservative Liberal-National Coalition. The two major competitors were the centre-left progressive Australian Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and the right-wing conservative Liberal-National Coalition, led by Liberal MP Tony Abbott. The outcome of the election was dictated by many long and short-term factors, including multiple leadership changes, bad history with parties, broken election promises, new policies appealing to a larger viewpoint and voter confusion. Many of these issues went unresolved by the Labor Party and resulted in the Liberal-National Victory.