You go right ahead and defend this sort of democracy. You have an extensive ancestry.

I am happy to stand on the side of the feckless ones. The critics, oppositionists, dissidents, who rebuff and ridicule those that would, like you and MM, deny or undermine even formal democracy.

This content-free, undelineated, abstract, rule-bound politics, is I would suggest, not just immature, but pre-cognitive.

Problems, I think, can arise when the Government has no such options and has to agree to the demands of the same Independent/s or the Opposition or else not have it’s bills past. This isn’t a problem in practice if Independents are moderates and act responsibly, but it is if they are not. All of this also goes for minor parties, and I would be very worried if, say, Fred Niles gang found themselves in the sort of position I have described.

As a supporter of Independents – the merits all ready given – we’re not beholden to a party and are free to make our own choices in the best interest of our constituents.

They are not the Nationals who tie themselves to the Liberals no matter what regardless of what they say.

They are not Labor as we actually care what happens outside Sydney and we wont tell you what you can do on your own property. After all they’re tied to the Greens no matter what.

As for the Democrats – I don’t see the plan to abolish the states winning anyone’s favour and if the NSW Dems are anything like the federal Dems, they often have a point on the intellectual argument but is idealistic and doesn’t take into account reality such as human behaviour and reaction.

I disagree that Independents hold disproportionate power and given I vehemently disagree with both Labor and Liberal coalitions Independents are the only option. A hung parliament or at least a parliament with a balance of power in the upper house is the only ideal option at any time. That is regardless of whether it is State or Federal politics.

The Nationals Andrew Stoner often attacks Independents and I see this as Labor’s attack. I do not dispute that fake independents may be used for political purposes but we are talking about actual independents aren’t we? The people attacking Independents seem to be little more than victims of groupthink.

The Labor and Liberal parties do indeed sometimes implement policies that the public oppose. The thing is as both need more seats than the Opposition to form a Government they are reliant on a very broad base, and they only have to piss off a small portion of it to find themselves out of office.

A single Independent, on the other hand, can only be held accountable by their own electorate, an electorate which makes up a very small total portion of the state or national population. They can potentially be immune from the vast majority of the people effected by the policies they have implemented.

I think that Independent members can be beneficial, especially when it comes to holding the Government to account, but you can’t pretend that their own accountability doesn’t become an issue when they find themselves in a position of power over state or national policy.

can lead to policies with very little public support being implemented.

Can’t have that can we? No way mate. This never happens under Liberal or Labor goverments. They. Wouldn’t. Dare. So. As for those upstart independents trying it on…mumble grumble.

MM’s whole post reeks of sour grapes. The temerity, he/she suggests, of independents even thinking they have the right to run in elections and if, heaven forbid, are elected, should be so pretentiously wilful as to hold principled (guffaw) positions, reflecting legitimate (vomit) community interests, in parliamentary debate and vote. Bring the smelling salts, pronto! It is all a disgrace and a personal affront to MM. So let’s not hear any more of it.

Okie dokie, little lambs?

It is true that, as Nita says, â??minority parliamentary reps join with other forces and they can, with the other forces, form a majority on an issueâ?? but there is a distinction to be made between independents who get a major party behind them on an issue because of the merits of a case and independents who get a major party behind them by trading concessions for support. The latter can lead to policies with very little public support being implemented.

I welcome dissenting voices in parliament -

well, woopy doo, MM. We are all soooooooo relieved you approve of dissenting voices in Parliament.

Independents tend more than Labs-Lib to generate personality cults? What a lot of rubbish. What about Howard and Rudd and the way the MSM reports them. That is personality cultism writ large and ’twas ever thus.

Perhaps if you showed a little more (or any) interest in policies and issues that affect communities you wouldn’t have such a narrow, boring and bored electoral political perspective.