|
|
|
|
|
|
by hndamien
2333 days ago
|
|
|
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). |
|
|
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.