Mandates in Australian democracy

The Australian political system has been captured by large corporations for what seems like a very long time. This trend is global and is the plutocracisation of not only Western Liberal Democracies, but many governments around the world. 

Australian Democracy has been further weakened as it has functioned on seeking mandates predominantly from elections. This is why we have protests, but this year we've also had Artificial Intelligence scan submissions for the bills such as the bill relating to the legalisation and regulation of cannabis. The existence of this technology could be instrumental to shaping the future of Australian Democracy if politicians and the media spent more time publicly highlighting the Parliament's own website, and the existence of its committees that are available for public comment and involvement. 

Another good source of mandates for the Australian government is the surveys on Q&A, which could be expanded into a form of a digital democracy as non-binding referenda in each jurisdiction and at every level of government if the AEC set up a smoother process for digital voter enrolment and identification, such as via an app or website, as well as assuring that the software is simple enough for older devices to use. 

One process idea that can help end hyper-partisan policy development cycles and contribute to policies with strong mandates is to approach the policy development cycle with iterations such as below;

Jurisdiction level conversation --> non-binding public vote --> period of reflection --> Jurisdiction level conversation --> non-binding public vote --> Parliamentary debate --> Parliamentary vote

This could facilitate greater engagement in our democracy, and improve the social and political awareness of our country. Social and political awareness of all Australians, as well as an understanding of the structure and function of our political system is critical for us to avoid the mistakes of the past, and a further descent into plutocratic government. Our Prime Minister has the strongest mandate of any Prime Minister since before the revolving door of Prime Ministers occurred in the last decade, despite the Labor and the Coalition having the lowest primary vote in history at the 2022 Federal Election.

The Government's and Prime Minister's mandate is very strong, because of preferences from the Greens, the Teals, and many other voters who have decided that we are not going back to what was before. This was demonstrated in the Aston by-election, but yet it appears that the Government feels that it doesn't have a mandate for freezing rents, mortgages and grocery prices despite a cost of living crisis, or providing any other form of immediate relief. You have a mandate for this, and a lot more like ending fracking as well as new drilling and exploration of fossil fuels, and creating new levers to control inflation, and the outcome of the referendum shouldn't have any effect on that mandate because people are struggling across the country. 

The proper way to understand the extent of the mandate our government currently holds is by viewing the total all-party votes in the 2022 Federal Election. You'd notice that despite firmly being ahead of minor parties (4.3% ahead of the Liberal National Party of Queensland), the Greens have 4 seats in the House of Representatives, while the Liberal National Party has 21. This means that the Greens are averaging 448,996 voters per seat while the Liberal National Party is averaging 55,834 voters per seat.

Is it fair or equal for one person's vote to effectively be 8 times more powerful than another person's vote? People in regional, rural and remote Australia need to be heard too, and they need strong voices to bat for them in Parliament but an eightfold difference sounds absurd, and I hope the Government considers electoral reform on this matter before the next election, as well as defunding the corrupting influence of private corporate donations out of our political systems, and publicly funding it instead.