Darron CharlesworthBeware Hobson's Choice
July 27th 2010 21:24
Category: No Category
I came across an interesting term today: “Hobson’s Choice”. It means making what appears to be a free choice but when there is no real alternative. With an election almost upon us this highlights the situation for the voter. What choice do we really have?
In a few short weeks Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard will ask the Australian people to vote for them. They will give us a list of reasons why not to vote for the other and one or two why we should vote for them specifically. They will be offering inducements to encourage the voters to pick one over the other. There are so many things wrong with this that it is difficult to know where to start.
The main issue is the electoral system. What if you do not like Gillard or Abbott? What if you don’t think much of any other alternative? Either way you are compelled to choose. Voting is compulsory putting you in a Hobson ’s choice dilemma. After preferences are handed out – and in the majority of cases an alternative to the two major parties is unlikely to gain enough votes for a parliamentary seat – the final preference will go to TA or JG. You have a choice but not really.
Where then, is the democracy? Where is the ability to make a free choice? What if, like me, you do not believe that either of them is fit to run a bake sale let alone the country? Just like the ’07 election the choices are dismal, the likely outcome equally horrifying. Is there any one is this country with real leadership potential?
Then there is the presidential style of campaign. Australia is not a presidential system; it is a Westminster system; a party system. The leader is elected by the party not by the people. A lot has been said about Kevin Rudd – the PM voted for by the people and how he was unceremoniously dumped from the leadership. And let us not forget that then, just as now, the leader is the main marketing tool. This is nothing more than political spin. A member of parliament in Australia is elected to represent a particular electorate. Any other role is offered by the party who can equally and rapidly rescind that offer.
When you vote you vote for a person who will, in theory, represent your interests in Parliament. The leader is nominated by the party and can be removed on a whim. If the party no longer has faith in them or, as in the case of Kevin Rudd, the party does not believe that they can win re-election – the only thing which seems to matter in politics anymore.
In a few weeks then the Hobson’s choice will be upon us all. With no standout or seemingly deserving person or Party in contention you have a choice which really is no choice at all: yet one MUST be made.
In a few short weeks Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard will ask the Australian people to vote for them. They will give us a list of reasons why not to vote for the other and one or two why we should vote for them specifically. They will be offering inducements to encourage the voters to pick one over the other. There are so many things wrong with this that it is difficult to know where to start.
The main issue is the electoral system. What if you do not like Gillard or Abbott? What if you don’t think much of any other alternative? Either way you are compelled to choose. Voting is compulsory putting you in a Hobson ’s choice dilemma. After preferences are handed out – and in the majority of cases an alternative to the two major parties is unlikely to gain enough votes for a parliamentary seat – the final preference will go to TA or JG. You have a choice but not really.
Where then, is the democracy? Where is the ability to make a free choice? What if, like me, you do not believe that either of them is fit to run a bake sale let alone the country? Just like the ’07 election the choices are dismal, the likely outcome equally horrifying. Is there any one is this country with real leadership potential?
Then there is the presidential style of campaign. Australia is not a presidential system; it is a Westminster system; a party system. The leader is elected by the party not by the people. A lot has been said about Kevin Rudd – the PM voted for by the people and how he was unceremoniously dumped from the leadership. And let us not forget that then, just as now, the leader is the main marketing tool. This is nothing more than political spin. A member of parliament in Australia is elected to represent a particular electorate. Any other role is offered by the party who can equally and rapidly rescind that offer.
When you vote you vote for a person who will, in theory, represent your interests in Parliament. The leader is nominated by the party and can be removed on a whim. If the party no longer has faith in them or, as in the case of Kevin Rudd, the party does not believe that they can win re-election – the only thing which seems to matter in politics anymore.
In a few weeks then the Hobson’s choice will be upon us all. With no standout or seemingly deserving person or Party in contention you have a choice which really is no choice at all: yet one MUST be made.
| 88 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
