4
WA local government dysfunction in spotlight as councils dissolve (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/perth@aussie.zone
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I found this section interesting

Ms Hayward[Port Hedland resident] believed compulsory voting would "absolutely" enhance the quality of local councils. "I think that if it's compulsory, then people are going to take more of an interest and possibly give them the opportunity to have a voice, whereas before they might not have wanted to do that," she said.

According to the Western Australian Electoral Commission, local government elections in 2023 achieved a voter turnout rate of 31.6 per cent, up from 30.2 per cent in 2021 and 29.07 per cent in 2019.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

Oh, thats interesting, so the normal electoral process, but a randomised but then self selecting group of candidates.

I guess the independence of each new member coming in is the perceived strength here.

But i'm not sure 'independence of each member' would be a strength in this format. Because the erstwhile independent members, since they're, at first, randomly chosen community members, would likely begin forming impromptu and easily led blocks/factions within the parliament once there.

Essentially ending up with a weak Party system that is as easily corruptible as the current situation, but less effective as a voting and policy force as the current situation.

Or have you got a different strength/benefit to this system in mind?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    More likely the other way a round, elect 15 members for 5 positions for example, every candidate has been endorsed in an election but no amount of party influence, marketing, or corruption can ever guarantee a result.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Hold on, what?

    In your example do you mean,

    • select 15 randomised people to run against each other to win 5 seats.

    Or,

    • Elect 15 people from a randomised larger pool of people. And those 15 people are then lotteried for each decision/period into the council of five position.

    If its the second one, thats interesting as fuck. I think I'd still hold my reservations about ongoing groups leading to factional groupings(essentially a shit form of a Party), but its really a rethink of the system elevating the utility of randomness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Sorry for not being clear.

    We have 5 positions to fill, we elect 15 people. From those 15 we select 5 at random.

    This way everyone who eds up in a position wants it and has been elected but no amount of influence or money can guarantee a certain result

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 1 year ago

    Oh yeah, that makes much more sense.

    Yeah, as i say relying on the utility of randomness is so undervalued especially to cut through the power dynamics that exist and are built into society over time.

    I like that method of election. I'm fairly sure LGA's have a fair bit of latitude as to how their elections work so i think an experiment with this is technically possible in WA.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent