No. But your response is a good example of the tone of most citizens right now, and exactly why our system of government is a travesty and an utter failure of governance.
Any evidence for your assertion that "most citizens" have this tone.
By and large, the rights of the people to decide who should govern have been betrayed. At least, this is the popular opinion of the people of this nation. It doesn't matter who actually became the puppet leader in the end, but a sizable proportion of the population - and indeed even the formed government - are of the belief that the wrong person is leading the country.
The system has done what the system does. The independents are responsible ultimately to their electorate, and they have to make choices for their electorate. They will be judged by their constituents at the next election.
The fact that there are people that disagree with the side they chose to support is not a failing of the system, and does not, in my view, suggest that the system is wrong.
However, if we wanted to actually make sure all people were fairly content with who is leading the country, then we would need an election result by consensus. Since that's "too difficult", it doesn't happen. Yet our conceding of this point does not stop the opposition to the leadership (be it in the form of the populace or their representatives in parliament) from paralyzing the progressing of the nation, the responsibility of the elected government. That action of paralysis is itself a betrayal of democracy and is perpetrated without boundaries by the press.
The people do not actually elect who will lead them. It is the party process that has tried to push things into a more presedential style election, but that is not our underlying system. If anything you vote for the party that you think best represents your interest.
I think that it is the belief of the people that they elect the leader of the country that is wrong.
- Individual parliamentarians have the sole right to hold an entire nation's legislative course to ransom (in this case, Fielding)
A single person cannot hold the nations legislative course to ransom. It is only an issue when there is a disagreement between the parties over legislation. There is nothing wrong, in my view, of someone suggesting amendments to the legislation.
At the other extreme, you can end up with a party controlling both houses, where the senate becomes a simple rubber stamp for the house. It is in such situations where you get the parties implementing some rather extreme policies guided by idealogy rather than what is right for the country.
For a democracy by parliament to actually work, people need to respect the system and then acknowledge that when a decision on leadership has been made, until the next time that leadership is contested then we need to work effectively together for the best interests of the nation. Perpetrating a cycle of governance paralysis and unfair representation will certainly not be in the interests of the nation, but we all know it's going to happen. It's happening right now....
There is little evidence that the current position cannot work. Indeed, minority government is probably more the norm in the state governments, and, with the possible exception of a couple of states, they seem to be functional (and stable).
Time will tell, of course, but I don't believe that we are necessarliy heading toward a period of instability.
If anything the current vote reflects disenchantment with the two major parties, and I think it is something both sides need to take on board.
IMO if ALP only had a slightly more positive campaign, then Abbott's campaign was as low as the permanent topkill cement that is plugging the recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Never would have happened without a hung parliament so the outcome is getting better IMO.
