As always I have serious reservations about calling representative government democracy at all, that being said I think that fixed term lengths is a greater step forward in democracy than a longer term length would be a step back. If that’s the compromise I think it’s worthwhile.
Comment on It's been a feature of Australia's elections since federation. Albanese supports a change
brisk@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
“If you’ve got a three-year cycle, in practice, that often means that you really only have a shorter window of perhaps a couple of years to bring about substantial reform, by which time you’re looking at the next election,” he said.
No, you have three years to bring about substantial reform. If you decide to prioritise campaigning over reform, that’s your decision and a longer term won’t change that.
There was a significant push for one year terms early on, I’d much rather see that than a reduction in our democratic voice.
Joshi@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
brisk@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
I do agree with fixed terms, and would probably approve a referendum that only offered a package deal
vividspecter@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
That sounds like a mess, especially if the public service has to deal with changing governments all of the time (if there was public service reform that limits the influence of the government in power I’d be for that, but that is challenging). And whether you like it not, the incentives would be for governments to constantly be in campaign mode with shorter terms.
brisk@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
The ideal is that a functional government doesn’t change all the time, but a nonfunctional one can be removed before too much damage is done. Consistency isn’t beneficial if it’s consistently bad.
I can’t argue against the constant campaigning.
dgriffith@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
The problem is that then governments are slaves to the populist vote. There’s been quite a few projects and policies in Australia that have been short term pain for long term gain.