[romanr]

Political party elected for money reasons that ignores science is a symptom of the problem, it is not the problem itself. Outdated laws and electoral two-party system is the problem.

Why no “top researcher” ever urges to look at the root of the problem? Why researchers of political science do not sound the alarm to change outdated laws that were written 100 years ago when they couldn’t imagine shameless lobbying, mega corporations, manipulated social networks, and climate emergency that clearly requires different political system to manage it.

[joe_the_user]

Political party elected for money reasons that ignores science is a symptom of the problem, it is not the problem itself. Outdated laws and electoral two-party system is the problem.

I disagree. Powerful people and institutions actively protect their interest. Laws and precedents are protected when there are interests that benefit from them.

IE, anti-democratic institutions survive because people protect them. They are the symptom and money driving the system is the cause.

[bamboozled]

The other issue I see is that, traditionally, it wasn't a matter of the end of civilization if governments took 3, 4 year terms to do something about an issue. For example outlawing smoking in public places.

This issue is so dire and serious but it doesn't fit in the headspace of these politicians and the voters that like them, it doesn't fit their traditional model of urgency.

My tl;dr version; it's too late to wait any longer. We can't wait till these politicians retire for action.

[hndamien]

We don't have a 2 party system though?

[paranoidrobot]

Australia (as well as the US, UK, NZ, and I'm sure many other countries) have a two-party system as defined by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

In Australia, in recent times that's the Liberal Party and the Australian Labour Party.

While there have been influential minor parties, and even independent persons who hold the balance of power on occasion, the executive leadership is always from one of two major parties. Those parties may change over time, fwiw.

[boyter]

Although the Liberal Party is a coalition with the Nationals who have a great deal of influence over the Liberal party and its policies when the Liberal party is unable to form a majority government on its own.

[JimmyAustin]

The party(s) in power are literally called the Coalition, as it's made up of two parties that have partnered up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_(Australia) ).

[Taniwha]

Your link explicitly puts NZ in the multi-party bucket - our current government is made up by 3 parties, its opposition by 2.

We haven't had a government made up by a single party since we ditched FPP and brought in proportional representation

[hndamien]

That isn't really what that Wikipedia page is saying - although the interpretation is ambiguous.

"In contrast, in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia and in other parliamentary systems and elsewhere, the term two-party system is sometimes used to indicate an arrangement in which two major parties dominate elections but in which there are viable third parties which do win seats in the legislature, and in which the two major parties exert proportionately greater influence than their percentage of votes would suggest."

The important weasel word there is "sometimes" and in those cases it would be incorrect. To form Government one has to have a majority. To gain this majority, the current Government is formed by a "coalition" - which is a combination of parties - Nationals and Liberals. The opposing majority party is Labor. So here you have 3 parties. Not to mention that the structure of the Australian elections is such that we have one of the most democratic systems using compulsory, preferential voting - meaning that everybody has to vote, and all votes convey some power in decision making. The only case where this isn't try is in a recent edge case caused by rule changes allowing you to number above the line (and not to completion).

It is about as close as you could get to a fair democratic system that is not systemically bound to be a two party system, and in practice, has not resulted in a two party system, but one of a coalition, a majority opposition and a decent growing minor party. (With many others in the senate).

[paranoidrobot]

> Nationals and Liberals. The opposing majority party is Labor. So here you have 3 parties

The Nationals are really only a separate party from the Liberals in name only. They don't (by and large) ever compete with the Liberals for seats, and where policies differ - it's because the Nationals have a view that's more representative of their regional constituent's views.

[hndamien]

Yes, but the more important distinction is the election structure which is not systematically designed to result in a two party system. "System" being the important word here, not "outcome".