Thank you Bradlow + Bock for Higgins, very insightful. And thanks, Tim, for giving these candidates an opportunity to present their views to an audience outside of Higgins.
It goes to also show that the limiting of the number of seats to 150 is creating issues for quality of representation also. Some electorates now have 110,000 people but this removal of seats means one less local MP for Victorian and NSW residents. Canada or UK have around 72,000 electors per constituency.
It’s getting to the point where the Lower House should be expanded so that we have a more balanced division of electors per seat. Although of course that would necessitate an increase in the Senate.
This isn't a great outcome, but it's hard to see how it could be avoided in a rule-based process. The AEC can't (or at least shouldn't) draw boundaries to protect good sitting members, or because there are appealing candidates.
We should be voting for good female candidates wherever they stand.
A change in electoral boundaries should never ever consider current sitting or proposed candidates for the seat, that would be a terrible idea. I would hate it if it was any sort of consideration. The seat held by the PM for example should be subject to exactly the same processes as any other. And where do we draw the line - would a seat held by a queer candidate or an indigenous one deserve to be treated differently?
Thank you Bradlow + Bock for Higgins, very insightful. And thanks, Tim, for giving these candidates an opportunity to present their views to an audience outside of Higgins.
Glad you liked it, thanks Julie.
Another interesting piece Tim.
It goes to also show that the limiting of the number of seats to 150 is creating issues for quality of representation also. Some electorates now have 110,000 people but this removal of seats means one less local MP for Victorian and NSW residents. Canada or UK have around 72,000 electors per constituency.
It’s getting to the point where the Lower House should be expanded so that we have a more balanced division of electors per seat. Although of course that would necessitate an increase in the Senate.
This isn't a great outcome, but it's hard to see how it could be avoided in a rule-based process. The AEC can't (or at least shouldn't) draw boundaries to protect good sitting members, or because there are appealing candidates.
We should be voting for good female candidates wherever they stand.
A change in electoral boundaries should never ever consider current sitting or proposed candidates for the seat, that would be a terrible idea. I would hate it if it was any sort of consideration. The seat held by the PM for example should be subject to exactly the same processes as any other. And where do we draw the line - would a seat held by a queer candidate or an indigenous one deserve to be treated differently?