"for one thing, as a starter, the change over between political parties often results in good policies being trashed and dud ones replacing them in line with partisan ideology."
......Ironically, that's a very partisan opinion from you Scott. "Good" policies only get trashed if you're on the losing side. Further, an incoming Government have every right to ditch a policy that they said they would ditch.
........further, your idea of independents doesn't fix that 'issue' at all. Independents still get voted out, and if you had a House full of them it would be because of policies they held. All you're describing is the policy churn following an election which would happen after any election, not just one dominated by two parties.
"the swing from right to left is intensely destabilising"
......how do you work that out? How is a swing from right to left when dominated by two parties destabilising, but independents get it right? What makes you think that independents wouldn't be held accountable for their policies, enough to be booted at an election for something different?
"voting in parliament where 2 ideologies compete and all other considerations cast aside means that diabolical deals must be negotiated, regardless of the pros/cons of the bill involved, that enables dodgy dreams to dominate parliament."
....what sort of 'diabolical' deals have to be negotiated, Scott? Give me an example. More importantly, those deals as often as not have to be negotiated with independents or one-outers who can hold a broad and strongly-supported community agenda to ransom for their own ends. If you're spruiking the benefits of independents you should also acknowledge their pitfalls.
......further, you seem very sure that a House full of independents would be independent of Left and Right. What makes you think that left-leaning independents wouldn't band together to form an alliance to push their leftist agenda? I'm sure we could come up with a name for this alliance, I'll have a think about it.
"lastly it leaves parliament in a squabble fest that achieves nothing other than shaming the Aus parliament as a mob of squabbling chooks."
......At least under the current arrangement there are only two main voices we have to listen to. You're obviously suggesting that a room with a hundred different voices in it each with their own agenda would be less squabbly. How do you come to that conclusion? I would have thought it far more likely that the House would be a mess with no heirarchy and joint position.
"if this doesn't address your claim that parliament is "well functioning" you have those hallucinogenic fog lenses tuned into realising wishful thinking.
.....None of it actually addresses my claim Scott. The system we have with a single party or tight Coalition being able to form Government in their own right makes the choices for the voter extraordinarily clear. It also provides certainty that when a voter votes successfully for their winning candidate who can form Government, that they have voted for a particular suite of policies. You can do this when the election platform is the same for a majority of winning candidates. You can't do that with independents.
I'm not suggesting the status quo is perfect Scott. But you haven't shown us in any way how filling the lower House with Independents 'fixes' it. You haven't even shown that a room full of independents would be left/right agnostic, you're just hoping they would be.
I'm happy to listen to whatever you have to say on it Scott, but you have to consider what you are arguing, because the above just sounds like you've got a beef with major parties and assume that anything that's different to that is better. I haven't even started on the dangers of independents, but let's try and establish your actual argument for independents before we worry about the dangers of them. Remember Scott, you have to tell us how it's better, not just different.
