Mathematicians are happy campers this week, having Nate Silver
show that true scientific analysis of polling data is more
accurate than the so-called expert opinion. That I am happy
about, what I am not happy about is that the new profile of
polling (which has been highlighted in this country) means that
the likes of Newspoll will be given even more media
space.
I don’t doubt that Newspoll is accurate, what I hate are the
questions asked. Who decided in this country that we are
only supposed to have 2 political parties (with the Greens or
other seemingly there just for nuisance factor)? When
doing Ancient History in high school I don’t remember ever being
taught that Democracy could only be 2 parties? It is always
the same questions in the polls (regardless of company), Two
Party Preferred, Primary Vote, Better PM... This has been
going on for so many years now that it has basically conned the
public into believing that there is only 2 choices, only 2
choices are ever discussed, even if you do want to vote for ‘god
forbid’ someone other than the big Two then it is a ‘wasted’
vote.
How about they ask a few other questions...
If an election was to be held tomorrow, who would you
vote for?
ALP
Coalition
Greens
NONE OF THE ABOVE
I wonder, seriously wonder, if the poll was not just marginal
seats, but a random sampling Australia wide, what the result
would really be? A pub poll on our back deck voted
overwhelming ‘None of the Above’?
I wish we could go back decades, where yes there were still
larger parties, BUT, as my Modern History teacher taught us, they
did not always vote on party lines, there were a lot more
Independents and smaller parties, and they only ever voted with
the larger parties IF the particular party’s legislation being
put forward was suitable for their own particular voter
bases. They were never locked in as BFF’s for ever as they
are now? That would be democracy. Or at least a step
closer to it than what we have now, which is looking way too much
like the US system at the moment?
Seriously, as a punter, what is wrong with me wanting my elected
Representative to actually represent me and the majority in my
electorate? I wish someday some really really rich person (maybe
you Clive, you are doing well taking them on Qld), would actually
take a pollie to court for misrepresentation?
Think about? You live in an electorate where they are
overwhelmingly in support of say... gay marriage?
your member of parliament, says he ‘as a private individual’ is
also ok with it, BUT, his ‘party’ is against it, therefore he
votes against it! What should his responsibility have been
there? His electorate or his party? Personally I
think it should have been his party, we are his bosses, he is
there because we voted for him, so if all investigative data
shows that the member has gone against the wishes of his
electorate then why can’t we sack them there & then? I
mean, they did mis-represent themselves, they said they would be
‘OUR’ voice in Government and they weren’t, they were the voice
of the ALP/LIB etc., ?
Federally where I am is on the edge of a large electorate and our
Federal member is way off base with how my area feels, State
wise, our member is a decent bloke, very much in tune with our
area and from personal experience, I know he really does care
about our area, BUT, I could not support what our Premier is
doing to the state (particularly when it comes to Education &
Health), and I know my local member probably really can't do much
about that. Therefore, from what I have seen over the
years, Independents tend to be more inclined to know their
electorate. They actually do represent the wishes of the
electorate, so maybe we need more of them? Either way,
would be nice to break down the power of the big two. Come
on Pollsters, ask some more questions, toss in the NONE OF THE
ABOVE?
