Democracy up the poll
Andrew Bolt
YOU think we live in a democracy where we choose our leaders? Then wake up and check the leaders of our states and territories.
Voted for any of them?
In fact, six of the eight got their jobs without going to an election. They were picked instead by their party to replace a leader of their own side.
Five still haven't got the voters' nod since, which means most Australians have a premier they've never had the chance to vote for.
Nathan Rees, the new Premier of New South Wales, is just the latest to be selected, not elected, being picked by his desperate party to replace the drowning premier Morris Iemma.
Earlier this year, David Bartlett became Premier of Tasmania in the same way -- replacing a leader from his own side who was dying in the polls.
Also yet to face the voters are Victoria's John Brumby and Queensland's Anna Bligh, who replaced leaders who retired.
At least Western Australia's Alan Carpenter, selected two years ago, has at last faced an election -- but got such a mauling on Saturday that he might be the first premier in a decade to be sacked by voters, and not colleagues.
Northern Territory Chief Minister Paul Henderson was also selected this year, but has since fought an election and won, albeit by a single seat.
That leaves only two leaders who gained power by winning an election -- South Australia's Mike Rann and the ACT's John Stanhope.
Something sure has changed. A decade ago, just three of the eight state and territory leaders were selected, rather than elected.
Most then were like Bob Carr and Jeff Kennett, winning office by winning an election from Opposition, getting a mandate for them and their policies.
It was said then there was only one poll that counted: the election. But increasingly the polls that count are opinion polls, warning a government is on the slide or a leader on the nose.
Both parties now realise if they are in power and voters want change, it's better the government offer it, rather than the Opposition. That's what John Howard failed to realise last year: if voters wanted a new prime minister, it was better to give them Peter Costello rather than let them vote in the only other option in Kevin Rudd.
This changing of leaders has kept state governments looking so refreshed so often that until the weekend's election in WA, none had fallen for more than a decade.
Sure, it also helped that the Oppositions in all that time, all Liberal, weren't much chop.
But a new technique for clinging to office is now embedded in our politics. Governments know they must give voters all the change once offered almost exclusively by Oppositions. They must change flagging leaders, so voters won't change parties.
Perhaps there are benefits to this. After all, never have parties studied polls so keenly, looking for ways to keep voters happy.
But there's also something sinister to it, especially with more states opting for longer, four-year terms. It's this: never have so many voters been represented by leaders they've never checked or chosen. Is this democracy?