The trouble with funding from excise is the pork-barreling on multiple levels.
Printable View
The trouble with funding from excise is the pork-barreling on multiple levels.
As long as people respond with their vote it will continue. It’s democracy at work and arguably a flawed element of our electoral system.
As Churchill is reputed to have said "...it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried...".Quote:
Originally Posted by clive22
Most of us have a tendency to assume that any time democracy turns up a policy that we think is wrong, then their must be a flawed element in our electoral system.
This is exactly the thinking that has led to popular support for totalitarian regimes throughout history - "surely it is better to make the right decisions rather than the popular ones?" Unfortunately, I have to agree with Churchill, and while I would agree that there are flaws in our electoral system, by and large, I do not think they have much influence on the results.
Absolutely Churchill was spot on.In no way am I suggesting totalitarian systems are better than democracy. Pork barrelling and gerimandering for that matter are recognised potential problems with our system.
Democracy in our electoral system favours marginal electorates, which can be favoured for expenditure on things like roads.
Take the electorate of congragamite. This tightly contested seat west of Geelong simply has money poured it by successive federal governments, both sides. One example of this is the western highway through there is a 4 lane highway with little justification given the traffic volume.
Arguably on a basis of needs there are electorates with real needs that are overlooked because they are notionally safe. This is a flaw because funds are not granted on needs.
My own electorate is now a marginal, previously was safe. We have had money poured in recently., so democracy does have a balancing mechanism.
If you’re in the majority or in an area that is marginal, democracy is great. If you’re not democracy is unfair. When elections are decided with just over 50% of the vote I don’t believe this is a fair democracy.
A majority should be 75-80% IMO. We live in a diverse world. Parties should work together to form democratic government - just like all of humanity needs to work together regardless of difference. Diversity is a strength not a weakness.
Diificult to compare NZ to Aus.. NZ has 85% renewable energy , and the average urban driver travels 22 kms / day. [ from the NZ transport web site. ]this site is worth a look. NZ seems to have the EV situation well in hand. Australia, on the other hand....
Electric vehicles | Ministry of Transport
Getting a bit off topic for this thread, but the bigest improvement I can see that could be made to our democracy is multimember electorates. But that is not going to lead to larger majorities - quite the reverse. What is would lead to is that either nothing gets done or everyone is going to have to compromise to get a working government. Overeseas countries that have democracies that have this type of mechanism seem to come in both types - non-working government, or a system where everyone compromises.
Besides your political and environmental views...Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed
Are you at ANY stage going to post anything to do with LRs?
In answer to your post above - Majority... key word... 50.1% makes something a majority...
It’s only “unfair” when viewed from the perspective of the “minority” - as they say “Some days you’re the dog; other days you’re the fire hydrant.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
actualy its 50% plus one.
Why the discussion regarding fuel excise tax and road infrastructure? They are only lossely related. "The fuel excuse tax collected is partly used to fund national road infrastructure projects and repair roads, but most of it (approximately 75%) goes into general revenue. "
Source: Raise highway spend from fuel tax: NRMA