Comment on Suffering from minor party confusion? Some links I found helpful

• Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Fusion is a micro party that attracts a very wide range of people, so I don’t think painting them all with the same brush is a particularly smart or helpful thing to do

  That’s true, but I also think it’s actually sort of part of the problem. Because Fusion isn’t one party, but instead a…fusion…of multiple different parties, it is inevitably very unclear where they stand. And they don’t exactly make it easy to see who’s who, or what they stand for.

  I’ve got no idea where the Fusion candidate in my seat, or the ones on my state’s Senate ballot, stand on important issues. But I do know that they are happy associating with a party that’s willing to put Libertarians, Labor, and even the LNP and Family First ahead of the Greens. And that I find to be deeply concerning about anyone’s political reliability.

  source

  • Ilandar@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Again, I don’t necessarily agree with that last part because every candidate and branch may (or may not) be different. Frankly, I don’t really care who is being preferenced in Victoria when I’m voting in South Australia. But yes, I absolutely agree that Fusion as a concept has a major issue in that it’s values and policy positions are so broad that it makes it very difficult for me as a voter to determine which aspects of the party platform are core, where influence lies and why my candidate is running under the party banner. I like a lot about Fusion but I expect that I’m actually a minority in that regard and that people are probably more likely to be attracted by specific elements of the party, which is a problem for stability and transparency. I am fortunate to have a lower house Fusion candidate in my seat but I can’t preference him above The Greens guy because it’s not at all clear why he is running or what he stands for.

    source

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      In a completely unrelated thread, I just know read a user say the following:

      As part of that group, you own ALL their bad behavior, because your group doesn’t do anything to remove that element from the group.

      I actually don’t entirely agree with it in the context it was presented. It’s hard to “remove” someone from an informal ideological association (though at the least, some members of the ideology should denounce others as necessary rather than remain silent).

      But in this context, I think that quote works perfectly. It’s a formalised political party. By being a member of the party, and especially by being a candidate for that political party, every one of their members are explicitly expressing agreement with the party’s methods.

      If one Labor candidate decided to put Family First ahead of the Greens, we would widely say that reflects badly of Labor as a whole. We wouldn’t excuse Labor Left because it was a Labor Right candidate who did it, we’d say that Labor Left chooses to remain unified with the ALP and in so doing they have endorsed Family First above the Greens.

      We can acknowledge that they might have disagreements behind the scenes and work towards improving, while also believing it valid to tar them with the same brush that their party’s public actions have crafted.

      but I can’t preference him above The Greens guy because it’s not at all clear why he is running or what he stands for

      Yeah I think it’s a complicated nuanced situation because there are multiple separate issues going on here. One is the ambiguity created by multiple separate parties merging into one party but semi-retaining their separate identities. Another is exactly what those individual constituent parties might stand for (just how libertarian are the Pirates, anyway?). And a third is the degree to which individual members should be held to account for the actions of the party as a whole, or other members of the party.

      source

      • Ilandar@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Using major parties like Labor, or even popular third parties like The Greens, as an example misses the point. The reason they are more trustworthy is because their candidates are screened more intensely. There is a much stronger connection between the party and the candidate, and the actions of one can often be an insight into the other.

        On the other hand, it is quite normal for micro-parties to be a confusing clusterfuck, and for that reason you can’t assume a local candidate is good or bad based on how the broader party is operating in other areas. Micro-parties are not organisations/institutions in the same way as larger parties, they are ultimately just collections of individuals who share some kind of common sentiment and that makes them much more volatile.

        source