I sure am glad that we don't have these Parliamentary systems here in America. Having elections scheduled at regular intervals seems like a better way to do things.
Notice how this arrangement in these "Parliamentary Democracies" essentially makes it easier for Tyranny to occur, by allowing the PM to reshuffle the legislature (under certain conditions) and get yet another chance to pass a bill that has already failed to pass twice.
No thanks.
America truly is the best system on earth. Don't let anyone tell you different...
Vote Trump!
I sure am glad that we don't have these Parliamentary systems here in America. Having elections scheduled at regular intervals seems like a better way to do things.
Notice how this arrangement in these "Parliamentary Democracies" essentially makes it easier for Tyranny to occur, by allowing the PM to reshuffle the legislature (under certain conditions) and get yet another chance to pass a bill that has already failed to pass twice.
There are safeguards in place that deal with those types of risks.
First of all, under normal circumstances, the Prime Minister has only limited control over the timing of elections for the Senate because the Senate does have fixed terms. You can only have a half-Senate election in the twelve month period before the expiry of a Senate term. As half the Senate is elected at a time, and they have six year terms, half-Senate elections occur about three years apart. A Prime is expected under normal circumstances to have a half-Senate election at the same time as the House of Representatives election. In practical terms, this means it is unusual for elections to occur more than once every three years under normal circumstances. That is the normal term, that is the expected term.
Since the first Australian election in 1901, we've had 44 Parliaments in 115 years - that's an average of 2.6 years between elections - close to the three year terms, mostly because of that expectation.
It's also important to understand that the Prime Minister does not have the final say as to the timing of the election. The Prime Minister only gets to request an election - the Governor General makes the decision as to whether the election is held. Some people seem to think that this is just a rubber stamp - it isn't. The Governor General's power to refuse an election is real. Because it is real, a Prime Minister knows that the Governor General will not approve an election without a good reason, and so Prime Ministers do not ask for such elections without good reason in practice, but that is a sign of the process working properly as designed. A Governor General of Australia has only had to use the reserve powers on one occasion - in 1975 when Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was acting outside of constitutional convention, the Governor General dismissed his government which is the clearest indication that the Governor General's powers to intervene if a government is, in any way, acting outside constitutional practice, are real. They've been used in the only case where a Prime Minister tried to do that. They have also been used a couple of times at state level (the individual Australian states have similar systems of government).
(In Canada, a Governor General actually refused a request for an election in 1926 but they've never done that specifically in Australia, because they've never had to).
The 'double dissolution' option exists to resolve a deadlock between the House and Senate. It does not allow for tyranny because that deadlock will only be resolved in the government's favour if the people decide they want that. It places the decision back in the hands of the voters. If the people do not want the government's agenda passed, they have the right to elect the opposition to government in its place.
The fundamental purpose of a double dissolution election is to resolve a deadlocked Parliament in favour of one side or the other. It can easily put the opposition in power if the Prime Minister's policies are not popular. I can see that happening this time.