Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Candidate Selection.
Many aspiring politicians put a great deal of effort into ensuring they have "the numbers" before they nominate for candidate selection. It isn't surprising really given that they generally learn the craft under the tutelage of some serving member in the State or Federal Parliament and serve an apprenticeship organising support for their master.
Some very ordinary and otherwise uninspiring members are expert at the process - one only has to look at the way a small clique has effectively gained total control over the Liberal Party and now sees the Party as their own enterprise that exists solely to ensure their own re-election.
Only the most idealistic would kid themself that there is anything that vaguely resembles merit based candidate selection in the Liberal Party - it simply doesn't happen. What does happen is that prospective candidates are put through a farcical exercise where delegates who have already been told, sometimes ordered, how to vote sit through an address by each candidate, ask some questions to give the process an air of sincerity then ignore everything they have heard to vote for the person who installed them as a delegate.
Delegates are quite open about it. They readily confess their vote was pre-arranged. Not only does this mean that the best candidate might fail to win selection, often the worst candidate is successful.
The whole process is designed to select the person most prepared to manipulate the system rather than the person best equipped to represent the Party or the electorate. It is no wonder that the voting public generally and accurately feels that our Parliaments are full of mediocre, self-interested hacks.
Who might want delegates to vote for a certain candidate? Well, for example, it might be a powerful businessman frustrated at what they see as a hostile Government blocking a pet project. They might think a conservative Government full of appreciative members would be more likely to grant the approvals they need to proceed.
Branch stackers fail to realise that HAVING to stack a branch to get the support of delegates means they probably don't have much to offer in the first place. They know they could never win the support of an impartial panel. Fortunately for voters, they can't stack the ballot box!
Similarly, a Parliament full of members beholden to powerful businessmen is hardly going to act in the interests of voters.
Some very ordinary and otherwise uninspiring members are expert at the process - one only has to look at the way a small clique has effectively gained total control over the Liberal Party and now sees the Party as their own enterprise that exists solely to ensure their own re-election.
Only the most idealistic would kid themself that there is anything that vaguely resembles merit based candidate selection in the Liberal Party - it simply doesn't happen. What does happen is that prospective candidates are put through a farcical exercise where delegates who have already been told, sometimes ordered, how to vote sit through an address by each candidate, ask some questions to give the process an air of sincerity then ignore everything they have heard to vote for the person who installed them as a delegate.
Delegates are quite open about it. They readily confess their vote was pre-arranged. Not only does this mean that the best candidate might fail to win selection, often the worst candidate is successful.
The whole process is designed to select the person most prepared to manipulate the system rather than the person best equipped to represent the Party or the electorate. It is no wonder that the voting public generally and accurately feels that our Parliaments are full of mediocre, self-interested hacks.
Who might want delegates to vote for a certain candidate? Well, for example, it might be a powerful businessman frustrated at what they see as a hostile Government blocking a pet project. They might think a conservative Government full of appreciative members would be more likely to grant the approvals they need to proceed.
Branch stackers fail to realise that HAVING to stack a branch to get the support of delegates means they probably don't have much to offer in the first place. They know they could never win the support of an impartial panel. Fortunately for voters, they can't stack the ballot box!
Similarly, a Parliament full of members beholden to powerful businessmen is hardly going to act in the interests of voters.
# posted by Yakbladder @ 6:23 AM 
