Wingnuts and Loonies

[Q.]

Whatever was agreed upon during post-election negotations would technically be a mandate, wouldn't it?

[Psyber]

Whatever was agreed upon during post-election negotations would technically be a mandate, wouldn't it?

I tend to think mandates only come from the majority of the voters electing a government, after they put their proposals to the people during the election process.
Gaining power in other ways is another issue.

In this context I'd apply this definition from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mandate

a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.

[Bat Pad]

Whatever was agreed upon during post-election negotations would technically be a mandate, wouldn't it?

No

[Q.]

Whatever was agreed upon during post-election negotations would technically be a mandate, wouldn't it?

No

Are you sure? Any political scientists in the room?

As I understand it, none of the ALP's promises were mandated as they were not elected into Government. So what validity do the agreements made post-election have?

[Bat Pad]

Whatever was agreed upon during post-election negotations would technically be a mandate, wouldn't it?

No

Are you sure? Any political scientists in the room?

As I understand it, none of the ALP's promises were mandated as they were not elected into Government. So what validity do the agreements made post-election have?

I terms of them being mandated, none. A mandate can only come from the electorate.

[redandblack]

A mandate in Australian political terms means nothing except as a word used by either party to support their argument for or against a particular policy.

A political party is voted in on a number of policies, some of which are put into effect and some which aren't.

For example, did John Howard have a mandate to bring in WorkChoices? It wasn't part of his policy at the election. Doesn't matter, he had the numbers in Parliament and it happened regardless.

In the current situation, I think both sides of the argument are correct. There is no mandate to bring in a carbon tax, but that's irrelevant, as I said. The fact that it's a minority government obviously changes things greatly. For example again, if the Independents had sided with Tony Abbott, he would have had to (and was prepared to) change his policies as necessary.

The mandate question is irrelevant. Whether Julia Gillard breaking an election promise costs her is a separate question that will be answered in due course.

[mick]

I actually agree with all of that

[Gozu]

A mandate in Australian political terms means nothing except as a word used by either party to support their argument for or against a particular policy.

A political party is voted in on a number of policies, some of which are put into effect and some which aren't.

For example, did John Howard have a mandate to bring in WorkChoices? It wasn't part of his policy at the election. Doesn't matter, he had the numbers in Parliament and it happened regardless.

In the current situation, I think both sides of the argument are correct. There is no mandate to bring in a carbon tax, but that's irrelevant, as I said. The fact that it's a minority government obviously changes things greatly. For example again, if the Independents had sided with Tony Abbott, he would have had to (and was prepared to) change his policies as necessary.

The mandate question is irrelevant. Whether Julia Gillard breaking an election promise costs her is a separate question that will be answered in due course.

Agreed it doesn't mean anything and means whatever the govt of the day wants it to mean.

[scoob]

A mandate in Australian political terms means nothing except as a word used by either party to support their argument for or against a particular policy.

A political party is voted in on a number of policies, some of which are put into effect and some which aren't.

For example, did John Howard have a mandate to bring in WorkChoices? It wasn't part of his policy at the election. Doesn't matter, he had the numbers in Parliament and it happened regardless.

In the current situation, I think both sides of the argument are correct. There is no mandate to bring in a carbon tax, but that's irrelevant, as I said. The fact that it's a minority government obviously changes things greatly. For example again, if the Independents had sided with Tony Abbott, he would have had to (and was prepared to) change his policies as necessary.

The mandate question is irrelevant. Whether Julia Gillard breaking an election promise costs her is a separate question that will be answered in due course.

Agreed it doesn't mean anything and means whatever the govt of the day wants it to mean.

I actually disagree with that - a mandate does mean something, if the public vote in a government knowing what the policies will be they have a mandate for it. The govt of the day don't change the meaning of that - as R&B has said they don't have a mandate and don't need one to bring in legislation as it their right as a govt. - whether the public lets them get away with it or not will be decided. With the length of time between elections and the changing circumstances within that time frame it would be impossible for a govt to have a mandate on all proposed legislation

[Psyber]

I actually agree with all of that

I agree with what R&B said, but not Gozu's extrapolation.
The term "mandate" does have a meaning relating to policy presented to the public and supported by the vote the follows.
Politicians on both sides have tended to destroy its meaning by claiming they have one for everything they decide to do.

[Sky Pilot]

We get the government we vote for. Except perhaps when (for example) in the seat of Example-Squared 30% of people vote for candidtate xyz, 30% vote for candidate abc and 40% vote for candidate 'are you being served' who gets in despite 60% of the people not wanting that outcome. Oh hang on...I forgot about the preference system. Talk about wing nuts and loonies? If we jacked the Westminister System and went first past the post the looney green/labour simpletons would romp it in I think. So lets just hope that we get the government that can end up doing the least amount of damage before they get chucked out. Liberal or Green/Labor - there's no Brownlow Medallists or rocket scientists here.

[redandblack]

I agree with your 30/30/40 analysis, SP.

You state that 60% of the voters didn't vote for Candidate 3, who wins with 40%.

First past the post would give you the same result and might even elect one of the 30% candidates!

I've long thought the only ideal system was one where everybody's preferences were counted.

This would be administratively difficult, though, but only counting defeated candidates preferences effectively gives them 2 votes.

If I get time, I'll put up an example to show what I mean

[Bat Pad]

If we had a first past the post system the coalition would have won the last election.

[redandblack]

And Labor would have won most of the elections from WW2 until recently.