09/02/2005
Political Floor Crossing
Okay so the floor-crossing period is well under way and the collective squealing of the piggies at the trough has noticeably risen. Lets just get this straight - floorcrossing is a bad idea. In our country we vote for parties and not individuals, this means when we cast our ballot for a party we are emphasising that our personal beliefs are closely aligned with that particular parties philosophy. However, when people see "their" representatives jumping ship to other parties - often in the hopes of securing more lucrative positions - it builds up feelings of cynicism in the entire political process.
Another ugly side-effect of floorcrossing is that the system of Patronage can be abused by the governing party to attract defectors. Floorcrossing legislation is only effective when you have a system of Direct Representation where citizens individually choose their representatives in a legislature instead of choosing them collectively in an election.
It has been noted in the Press that "floorcrossing was allowed by the Constutional Court", well that is only half the story. The CC in its judgement only considered the legality of floorcrossing in terms of the two electoral Acts, the Court did NOT consider (and this was stressed) the relative merits and demerits of the legislation.
At the end of the day it is up to us, the electorate to signal politicians that Floorcrossing is unacceptable and something which we find morally repugnant.
09:48 Posted in Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | Email this


Comments
I'm wondering whether direct representation might not be a better idea in our democracy. Seems to work well elsewhere. It would certainly make our politics a lot more interesting. I wonder how many political stalwarts would actually have the support of the electorate if they have to go directly to them for votes?
Hmm.....
Posted by: Ron | 09/07/2005
Well the problem with only direct representation is that it is a system of "winner takes all". So those people who vote for the losing candidate effectively lose any say in how they are governed. Imagine an extreme example where one candidate gets 1000 votes and the other gets 999. Under direct representation those 999 people lose out due to one fewer vote. The"winner"does not really have a true mandate....
For this reason I favour a mixture of both proportional and direct representation in government...both have their respective advantages and disadvantages.
Posted by: someamoungus | 09/07/2005
The comments are closed.