Strange Equation
So for the first time in a few short hours, I finally get to take part in the act of democracy. It’s something I’ve wanted to partake in since I was like… 10? I dunno. Alls I know is I was heartbroken I didn’t get to vote in the last election - it would’ve still panned out exactly the same, but the fact I didn’t get to share my own opinion make it seem shit. But finally.. I get to actually stand up and have a say.
That isn’t to say democracy isn’t without its flaws, and even that the candidates are without theirs. Sure, our system is substantially better than for example, the system that’s instated in the United States. For example - the comparatively easy and open entry for independent and minority parties into the Senate helps steer us further from the de-facto two-party system we’ve forged over the last while - the ability for a no-namer to stand up against the Coalition, et al is conducive to an effective government in letting people lead as will assist the people, and not as the hierarchy of more established parties and internal policy purport leadership should take place. However, one major downside to our system is that de-facto two-party stance, particularly in the House of Representatives. An independent or a lower status party getting representation in the House is almost unheard of - which is quite sad really given the size of the House of Representatives as opposed to the size of the Senate (150 seats decided via preferential voting as compared to 76 seats decided via proportionalised transferable vote, respectively) - even if in effect they have very similar roles in parliament. It works, but only because it’s been forced to do so.
Now the candidates are ones that worry me a lot… on one hand I hate Peter Costello and do not trust the man as far as I could kick him out of a moving vehicle - as a treasurer he’s some kind of miracle and has proven so over the last 11 years - but as a leader I don’t feel he has the capacity to lead in a manner which is both functional and diplomatic on both a federal level, and an international one… and on the other hand, I think Kevin Rudd is a lying arsehole - a snake in the grass, if you will - with the very real potential to ride us and the quite fragile economy we’ve forged since the last Labor leadership into the ground over the next term if he’s elected tomorrow. I personally don’t feel that Labor has the capacity to handle the economy in its current state given the nature of international relations at present - Labor’s stance on our military ties with the United States, while sane, do offer the potential for severing a very necessary tie for continued growth. Economically, there’s a lot riding on the outcome of tomorrow… if we do see a changing of the guard a lot of the ideas Labor have - while admirable - have that potential to backfire and drive us back into recession. This too can be said of the Coalition - the current administration have a few questionable ideas - WorkChoices is one thing that could be a double-edged sword if not maintained closely. It’s pretty evenly split down the middle, and everyone I’ve asked has said the exact same thing. It’s an election which actually begs of us to really question the motives and morals of our leadership - incumbent and future - and really assess exactly what they’re saying. For example, promising interest rate falls and similar sorts of things is bullshit which most people fail to recognise, for that to happen an economy needs to continue to thrive - and even then, it’s at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Bank. Sadly, most people take this sort of thing into consideration and because of it, they get caught up in it on the election trail.
In leaving - don’t fix something if it ain’t already broke. I’m rational and enjoy a very comfortable spot in the middle ground - but I also enjoy a stable spot here too. I know exactly what I’m writing on the ballot tomorrow.
