ONE MAN ONE VOTE YOU MUST REALIZE THE PREFERENTIAL VOTING SYSTEM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ! NOT ANYTHING LIKE WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED ! With regard to Money Bills and the power of the Senate, he was quite content to abide by the provisions of the Bill, because it was quite enough to give that House the power of making suggestions as long as the people were denied the privilege of electing the senators by direct vote. Is that his position to-day? How does he justify his attitude in regard to his colleagues here? The position is that the Senate is to be elected by the direct vote of the people, and will have as much right to represent them, as the guardians of the States, as the House of Representatives, on all questions. Would any of the gentlemen who represent the larger colonies consent to a similar course in their local Legislature? Would they agree that the members who represented 10,000 electors should have a greater control over taxation proposals than those who only represented 2,000? Would they agree to their colonies being divided into constituencies on the basis of population, and that on the one hand Melbourne and its suburbs should have perhaps four times as much proportional representation as the country districts? Would the representatives of New South Wales agree to this population basis in their local Legislatures? I venture to say that, as far as the people of South Australia are concerned, that they would not agree to it.
Posted on: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 06:40:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015