[monkeydreams]

Australian Federal/State elections are, I believe, unique in the world because of the mixed use of a) compulsory voting, b) ranked choice and c) apolitical election management through the Australian Electoral Council.

We are rarely happy with our choice of leaders (these days, at least) but these characteristics provide us with some protection from the more extreme elements affecting other Western democracies.

[perilunar]

Well the state elections are overseen by the various state Electoral Commissions, which are independent from the Australian Electoral Commission, but yes. They truly are the heroes of our system.

[monkeydreams]

> Well the state elections are overseen by the various state Electoral Commissions, which are independent from the Australian Electoral Commission, but yes.

Well, huh. Today I learned something. Thanks.

[google234123]

The system resulted in covid lock downs that look more like china’s than most other democracies.

[fphhotchips]

Which were enormously popular in retrospect, once the alternative was on display. The LNP were destroyed in two subsequent state elections, primarily around lockdown and border policy. Literally wiped out in WA.

The alternative angle to "lockdowns that looked like China" is "public health measures that weren't corrupted by corporate interests". Both are highly arguable, and as usual the truth is in the middle.

That's the main advantage of the Australian system - it keeps us somewhere near the middle (or is at least more difficult to shift away).

[chii]

those lockdowns prevented many deaths. It has a cost, but i would imagine that cost is worth it in the initial stages.

And overall, the pandemic was handled acceptably OK (there were a few problems and mistakes, such as the cruise ship ruby princess).

Now most of the population had their vaccination, and re-opened, the spread of covid is starting to be large, but the amount of people getting seriously sick and needing hospital is not that high.

It's pointless trying to bring politics into public health - doing so is a sign of political agenda. Comparing a country's pandemic handling to another's, and using the political system as the argument for efficacy (or lack thereof), is just a means to further one's political ideology and not for furthering public health.

[perilunar]

Public health is always political, firstly because it relies on taxpayer funding, but more importantly here, controlling pandemics requires restrictions on individual liberties.

We can (and should) debate the merits and necessity of lockdowns, mask wearing, etc., but to argue that the government has no right to restrict liberties is somewhat disingenuous — governments have always had the right and power to quarantine.

[chii]

Just because something relies on public funding doesn't make it political.

Public health is one of those. The overwhelming goal is to reduce health problems from becoming so large that infrastructure fails to handle it, as well as prevent death and suffering as a result.

If quarantine is the way to do it, then it makes sense to enforce it. If vaccination is required, then so be it, and the taxpayers foot the bill.

It has nothing to do with political ideology, left, or right, green or brown.

[monkeydreams]

> The system resulted in covid lock downs that look more like china’s than most other democracies.

Strange how these lock downs remained popular. People were happy to see them go once vaccination rates were up, but the governments who instituted them still poll strongly.

Something about people offering to sacrifice you on the alter of capitalism tends to turn voters stomachs.

[jmprspret]

Oh shut the fuck up. That has nothing to do with the electoral system.

And if you really think our lock downs can even remotely be paralleled by China's you're just plain wrong.