Over-represented extremism

Questions are being asked in Australia now as to why the fuck we're bogged politically as far as gay marriage goes at the federal level. Unfortunately the news is not pretty, and looks like it fits in with the question I've been banging my head against the wall with for some time now; that being why the hell are politicians (both state and federal) so intent on giving that repulsive Australian Christian Lobby any time at all?

Whenever I talk to moderate Christians they're quick to point out that the ACL is a radical fringe group and not at all representative of mainstream Christianity in Australia. Then I see Jim Wallace of the ACL making direct representation to the Prime Minister herself, not to mention the QLD premier Campbell Newman. Aren't main stream Christians annoyed that they're being misrepresented then? Where are the howls of protest from moderate Christianity when he launches into his homophobic drivel? The silence is deafening. Or does mainstream Christianity actually like what he's on about, but won't admit it publicly? Unfortunately it seems to be the later.

Luke Mansillo has written an interesting opinion piece on this in Same Same.  In it he discusses what's going on in federal politics, and as I indicated in a previous post it does seem to be the electoral system here that has contributed to this bullshit situation we're in now; namely that 60-70% of Australians endorse gay marriage but aren't finding anywhere near that representation in parliament as both parties block marriage reform.

As an Australian gay man, I now have more rights in New Zealand than in Australia. This is my country’s shame.

In New Zealand, I have the right to abode, the right to work, and even the right to vote if I have permanent residency. All those rights are afforded to me in Australia, but in NZ I have one more: as a gay man I can wed someone if I love them.

 ......................

There are 55 seats federally that are ‘marginal’ – a swing of 6% (or less) of the vote could change who holds that seat. There are about 100,000 voters in each electorate. Therefore for there to be a swing of 6% you need 6,000 votes.

In many of these electorates there are Christian voters who rank retention of their idea of marriage in their voting preferences before broadband infrastructure, taxation, the economy or any other policy when they vote. Those conservative Christians are not evenly distributed – they happen to be in suburbs where the marginal electorates are, so their voting effect is magnified in those critical hotspots.

In the suburb of Baulkham Hills in Sydney’s West there is the Hillsong mega-church. 21,000 people attend every Sunday. This is one church of hundreds in Western Sydney and in the marginal electorates all over the country. That’s a significant number of voters that can make a difference at an election time. If just the Hillsong church was counted, those people were drawn from four electorates there is a potential of a 4.2% against the Labor Party. Remember this is one single church; there are many churches in the country.

I would estimate 3,000 out of 100,000 voters would swing from the ALP to the Liberal Party if they were to approve of marriage equality. This would very roughly translate to a 15 to 20 seat loss for the Labor Party, meaning they would lose government.

This is why we do not have marriage equality in Australia. Our electoral system is currently blocking a policy the majority of Australians and the ideologies of both major parties fundamentally want to achieve in government. more

That's really fucked up. You can just about feel the frustration in his introduction. Whether his estimate of 3,000 out of 100,000 is correct or not I dunno, but he's certainly describing a legitimate phenomenon. 

So this seems to be the current situation. Labor is shit scared of losing government this coming election, and the conservative Liberal party is shit scared of losing prospective votes. As Christians are in marginal seats neither of them wants to offend their glass jaw sensibilities. Hence, the Prime Minister gives an ear to wacko fundie Jim Wallace, of the extremist fringe group the Australian Christian Lobby. Um, I guess "dog whistle" comes to mind here......  

What a pathetic state of affairs for any democracy to be in. A gov making legislative decisions based on an extremist minority who want to control the majority, even if the majority disagrees with them. Sound familiar? Yep, it's ironic that they use that very argument against gay marriage when it's exactly what they're doing themselves. In any case, it's hardly an example of democracy.

Perhaps Australia could take a look at the New Zealand system of proportional representation? Instead of a party having to win each individual seat to get into parliament, they're allocated seats according to the percentage of votes gained overall. The current Australian situation couldn't happen in New Zealand. I can't see electoral reform happening anytime soon here though.